Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC

Background

Michael Devin Floyd alleged that he was treated unfairly at Planet Fitness gyms in the Bay Area after opening memberships there. He alleged that staff watched him closely, that he was called a “bum,” that he was removed from gyms, and that his membership was canceled. Floyd brought ten claims against Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC: racial discrimination in contracting under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; discrimination in a public accommodation under Title II of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a; claims under California Civil Code sections 51, 51.5, and 1714; a California Unfair Competition Law claim; a Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim; negligent training and supervision; a claim based on agency-law provisions; negligent infliction of emotional distress; and punitive damages.

Saber removed the case from California state court. Floyd moved to remand it to state court, and he applied to proceed without paying filing fees. Saber moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Rulings on Filing and Jurisdiction

The court denied Floyd’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot. Although Floyd had started the case in state court, Saber was treated as the party starting the federal case because Saber removed it, had paid the filing fee, and had served Floyd.

The court denied Floyd’s motion to remand. Floyd’s amended complaint included claims under federal laws, giving the court federal-question jurisdiction. The court also had supplemental jurisdiction over the related California-law claims because they arose from the same events and gym memberships. The court rejected Floyd’s argument that Saber had to remove under 28 U.S.C. § 1443, explaining that section allows removal of certain civil-rights cases and does not require a defendant to use it when another removal statute applies.

Statute of Limitations

The court denied Saber’s motion to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds. Floyd alleged that the relevant events ended by December 30, 2021, and he filed his amended complaint naming Saber on January 30, 2024. The court concluded that the amended claims could relate back to Floyd’s original complaint under the applicable relation-back rules. Saber and Planet Fitness were related entities, Saber had notice of the action, and Saber had not met its burden to show that Floyd knew Saber was the correct legal entity when he filed the original complaint.

Individual Claims

Count One: 42 U.S.C. § 1981

The court granted Saber’s motion as to Floyd’s section 1981 claim, with leave to amend. Section 1981 prohibits intentional racial discrimination in contractual relationships. The court found that Floyd identified his race but did not allege facts showing that race motivated Saber’s conduct. The court stated that an amended claim would need to allege overt acts together with some direct evidence of racial motivation.

Count Two: Title II of the Civil Rights Act

The court granted Saber’s motion as to the Title II claim, with leave to amend. Title II prohibits racial discrimination in the full and equal use of covered public accommodations. The court noted that Floyd had not alleged that he gave the written notice required before filing a Title II action in a state with a law prohibiting the alleged conduct. The court also held that Title II does not authorize money damages and that Floyd’s allegations did not plausibly show race-based discrimination. For purposes of the motion, however, the court assumed that Floyd had adequately alleged that the gym was a public accommodation.

Counts Three and Four: California Civil Code Sections 51 and 51.5

The court granted Saber’s motion as to both California discrimination claims, with leave to amend. The court found that Floyd’s allegations of arbitrary or invidious treatment were conclusory and did not provide facts plausibly showing intentional discrimination or conduct prohibited by these statutes.

Count Five: California Unfair Competition Law

The court granted Saber’s motion as to the Unfair Competition Law claim, with leave to amend. The court found that Floyd did not identify the unfair business practice at issue or provide facts showing why the practice was unfair under any recognized test. The court also noted that the law generally provides injunctive relief and restitution, not damages.

Count Six: Consumer Legal Remedies Act

The court granted Saber’s motion to dismiss the Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim, with leave to amend. For a damages claim, the statute requires a written notice and demand sent by certified or registered mail at least 30 days before filing suit. The court found that Floyd had not shown compliance with that requirement. The court also found that his allegations did not identify the services involved or the specific prohibited practice under the statute. The court specified what an amended claim would need to allege, including proper notice for damages and the particular service and prohibited practice at issue.

Count Seven: Negligent Training and Supervision

The court granted Saber’s motion as to this claim, with leave to amend. Under California law, an employer may be liable for negligently hiring, supervising, or retaining an employee when the employer knew or should have known that retaining the employee created a particular risk and that risk caused the alleged harm. The court found that Floyd did not allege facts meeting that standard. It also noted that Floyd did not respond to Saber’s arguments concerning this claim.

Count Eight: Agency-Law Claim

The court granted Saber’s motion as to the eighth claim, with leave to amend. Floyd’s description of the claim did not provide a short and plain statement identifying the legal claim or the facts supporting it. The court also noted that Floyd did not respond to Saber’s argument that the claim was unclear.

Count Nine: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

The court granted Saber’s motion as to this claim, with leave to amend. The court found that Floyd did not allege facts establishing a duty, a breach of duty, or serious emotional distress. His allegations that he was traumatized, attended support groups, and sought counseling were not enough, on the allegations presented, to show emotional distress of the required severity.

Count Ten: California Civil Code Section 1714

The court granted Saber’s motion as to the section 1714 claim, with leave to amend. The court treated section 1714 as establishing general negligence principles and found that Floyd provided no allegations specific to this claim. The court also noted that he did not respond to Saber’s arguments concerning it.

Punitive Damages

The court granted Saber’s motion as to Floyd’s punitive-damages claim, with leave to amend. Floyd requested $2 million but did not allege facts supporting malice, oppression, fraud, or other conduct that could justify punitive damages. The court also noted that he did not meaningfully respond to Saber’s argument for dismissal.

Disposition

The court denied Floyd’s application to proceed without paying filing fees, denied his motion to remand, and granted Saber’s motion to dismiss. The court granted Floyd leave to file a second amended complaint by July 11, 2024, and instructed him to include all facts and claims in that new pleading rather than incorporating the earlier complaint by reference.