Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC

Background

Michael Devin Floyd, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC, concerning the termination of his membership at the Oakland Planet Fitness. His operative complaint asserted claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and Unfair Competition Law, along with claims for negligent training and supervision, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of an implied duty to perform with reasonable care. Floyd alleged that Saber terminated his membership because of his race and sexual orientation and that the termination breached the membership agreement. Saber argued that the agreement allowed it to terminate Floyd’s membership for violations of gym policies or for any other reason not prohibited by law.

The agreement stated that Planet Fitness could terminate a membership immediately for violating membership policies or club rules, or for another reason not prohibited by applicable law. Saber relied on reports and account notes concerning Floyd’s conduct at several Planet Fitness locations. Floyd disputed that he had violated gym rules or harassed anyone. He also asserted that Saber did not investigate the reports, notify him of the complaints before terminating his membership, or give him an opportunity to respond.

Evidence Rulings

The court sustained Floyd’s objections to several categories of evidence offered by Saber. It did not consider account notes, emails, or portions of the Brandon Romero declaration because Saber did not show that the hearsay in those materials could be presented in admissible form at trial. The court also did not consider the gym check-in logs because Saber did not show how they could be authenticated at trial. Finally, the court sustained Floyd’s objection to portions of Mark Christina’s declaration concerning events before December 2022 because Saber did not establish that Christina had personal knowledge of those events.

Claims and Rulings

For the Unruh Act claim, the court held that a reasonable jury could find that Saber terminated Floyd’s membership because of his race or sexual orientation. The court also found a factual dispute about whether Saber’s stated reason—that Floyd made gym patrons or employees uncomfortable—was legitimate and supported by admissible evidence. The court therefore denied Saber’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Unruh Act claim.

For the Unfair Competition Law claim, the court concluded that the claim was tied to the alleged Unruh Act violation. Because a reasonable jury could find that Saber discriminated against Floyd, the court denied Saber’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the UCL claim.

For negligent training and supervision, the court held that Floyd had not provided evidence that Saber knew its employees created a hazard or that Saber failed to act after learning of such a risk. The court therefore granted Saber’s Motion for Summary Judgment on that claim.

For breach of contract, the court found factual disputes about whether Floyd violated the agreement and whether Saber breached it by terminating his membership. The court rejected Saber’s argument that a good-faith belief in reported misconduct was enough, noting that Saber did not argue that it investigated the reported incidents. The court denied Saber’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the breach-of-contract claim.

For breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the court found a factual dispute about whether Saber unfairly interfered with Floyd’s contractual benefits by terminating his membership without investigating or notifying him of the complaints. The court denied Saber’s Motion for Summary Judgment on that claim.

For breach of the implied duty to perform with reasonable care, the court found factual disputes about whether Saber acted reasonably when using its contractual discretion to terminate Floyd’s membership. The court denied Saber’s Motion for Summary Judgment on that claim.

Disposition

Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered that Saber’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in part and denied in part. The motion was granted on the negligent-training-and-supervision claim and denied on the Unruh Act, Unfair Competition Law, breach-of-contract, breach-of-implied-covenant, and breach-of-implied-duty claims.