Chavez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 189 Cal. Rptr. 3d 449

Chavezs sued 24 Hour Fitness after Stacey Chavez suffered a traumatic brain injury at the Parkmoor facility on Feb 28, 2011.
Stacey signed a membership agreement releasing 24 Hour from liability for injuries caused by negligence.
Plaintiffs asserted ordinary and gross negligence, premises liability, and strict products liability; the release did not bar gross negligence.
24 Hour moved for summary judgment on Oct 25, 2013, arguing the release barred negligence and premises claims and that it was not grossly negligent due to a maintenance system.
The trial court granted summary judgment and denied a continuance to depose a maintenance employee; the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a continuance to obtain Idio’s deposition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence creates triable issue of gross negligence	Chavezes contend maintenance was not performed; lack of maintenance shows gross negligence	24 Hour argues routine maintenance and adherence to manuals show no gross negligence	Triable issue of material fact exists as to gross negligence
Whether denial of continuance to depose Idio was error	Continuance needed to obtain essential evidence	Court properly denied continuance	Reversed; continuance to depose Idio required
Whether the release barred ordinary negligence and premises liability	Release does not bar gross negligence, but may not bar others	Release bars ordinary negligence and premises claims	Release does not bar gross negligence; other claims potentially barred by release

Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 747 (Cal. 2007) (gross negligence requires extreme departure or want of scant care)
Decker v. City of Imperial Beach, 209 Cal.App.3d 349 (Cal. App. 1989) (distinction between ordinary and gross negligence for summary judgment)
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) (standard for triable issues on summary judgment)