Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger

Background

Michael Devin Floyd, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC, alleging civil-rights violations and contract claims based on Saber’s termination of his gym membership. Five claims were scheduled to proceed to trial. The court issued this tentative order to focus the parties’ arguments before a pretrial conference. The opinion states that the case was set for a bench trial, but also notes that Floyd demanded a jury trial and that the parties had not yet stipulated to a nonjury trial.

Floyd filed 14 motions in limine—pretrial requests to limit testimony or evidence that may be presented at trial. The court explained that such rulings are preliminary and may be changed during trial. It also declined to address Floyd’s arguments under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, which concerns unfair prejudice, because the court was assuming a bench trial.

Rulings on the Motions

1. Motion 1: The court denied Floyd’s request to exclude Cecilia Newman’s testimony. The testimony was conditionally relevant if Saber could show that it knew about Newman’s and her franchise’s experiences with Floyd before terminating his membership. The court also found the testimony potentially relevant to Floyd’s claimed damages. It did not decide whether Saber could establish the necessary foundation at trial.

2. Motion 2: The court denied Floyd’s request concerning communications about Newman, including the Newman email identified as Saber’s Trial Exhibit A. The email was conditionally relevant to Saber’s reasons for terminating Floyd’s membership if Saber could show that it knew about the email.

3. Motion 3: The court denied Floyd’s request to exclude Majenta Maldonado’s testimony under the missing-witness rule. That rule can allow an adverse inference when a party fails to call a witness who was especially available to that party, but Saber listed Maldonado as a trial witness. The court also declined to exclude her testimony based on Floyd’s arguments about discovery, memory, truthfulness, or bias.

4. Motion 4: The court denied Floyd’s request to exclude all evidence or witnesses not disclosed during discovery, without prejudice to Floyd renewing the objection at trial as to a specific item of evidence or witness. Saber represented that it was not aware of undisclosed evidence it intended to use at trial.

5. Motion 5: The court granted Floyd’s request, with a limitation. Saber may introduce evidence that Floyd had other gym memberships that were terminated when that evidence relates to Floyd’s damages. Saber may not use evidence of alleged misconduct at those gyms as character or impeachment evidence to suggest a pattern of misconduct or litigation.

6. Motion 6: The court denied Floyd’s request to exclude the Jax Three account notes, identified as Saber’s Trial Exhibit C. The notes were conditionally relevant and admissible for a non-hearsay purpose if Saber could show that it knew about them before terminating Floyd’s membership.

7. Motion 7: The court denied Floyd’s request to exclude all references to disputes during gym memberships before his Saber membership. Evidence of prior membership terminations could be relevant to damages, and evidence of conduct at those gyms could be relevant if Saber relied on it when terminating Floyd’s membership.

8. Motion 8: The court denied Floyd’s request concerning disputes during gym memberships after his Saber membership, with guidance. Evidence of later gym membership terminations could be relevant to damages, but evidence about what caused those later terminations was not relevant because Saber did not know about those events when it terminated Floyd’s membership.

9. Motion 9: The court denied Floyd’s request to exclude Sabrina Fernandez’s testimony under the missing-witness rule. Saber planned to call Fernandez, so she was not an absent witness. The court also found that Floyd had not shown discovery misconduct justifying exclusion.

10. Motion 10: The court denied Floyd’s request to exclude Brian Boucher’s testimony. The court stated that the dispute appeared moot because Saber did not list Boucher as a trial witness.

11. Motion 11: The court granted Floyd’s request to exclude the Boucher email, identified as Saber’s Trial Exhibit A. Because Saber did not list Boucher as a trial witness, the court found that Saber had not shown it could establish a proper foundation for the email.

12. Motion 12: The court denied Floyd’s request to exclude Saber’s account notes, identified as Saber’s Trial Exhibit B. The notes were conditionally relevant and non-hearsay if Saber could show that it knew about them before terminating Floyd’s membership. The court also found that Floyd had not shown discovery misconduct warranting exclusion.

13. Motion 13: The court denied Floyd’s request concerning references to the Saber account notes. The court found the notes conditionally relevant and found that Floyd had not proven they were altered or manipulated.

14. Motion 14: The court denied Floyd’s request to exclude correspondence and cancellation requests concerning gym memberships before or after the Saber membership. The court stated that later cancellations could be relevant if Saber was not aware of them when it terminated Floyd’s membership.

Disposition and Effect

The court concluded that it granted in part and denied in part Floyd’s motions in limine. The order primarily governed what evidence could be offered at the anticipated trial; it did not resolve which side would prevail on Floyd’s civil-rights or contract claims. Several evidence rulings were expressly conditional on Saber establishing knowledge, relevance, or foundation at trial, and the court stated that in limine rulings may be changed during trial.

Judge Thomas S. Hixson signed the order on November 12, 2025.