Floyd v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, LLC.
3:23-cv-00871
N.D. Cal.May 23, 2025Background
- Michael Devin Floyd, a 24 Hour Fitness gym member, had his membership terminated after several harassment complaints by other gym members (mostly female) spanning July to October 2022.
- Complaints included inappropriate touching, intimidating or harassing behavior, following members to their cars or within the gym, and refusing to abstain from unwanted contact after being told to stop.
- Floyd was twice removed from the gym (once with police involvement) and ultimately notified of his membership termination by letter and phone, with some opportunity to present his version of events.
- Floyd sued 24 Hour Fitness, pro se, on state law grounds: negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, breach of implied duties (reasonable care and good faith), and violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (UCL).
- Both parties moved for summary judgment on all claims at issue; federal jurisdiction was based on diversity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress | 24H failed to warn or question him before removal/arrest; no fair process | 24H acted reasonably and with due care given multiple harassment complaints | No breach of duty—public policy supports prompt action; summary judgment for 24H |
| Breach of Contract | 24H failed to fairly investigate and wrongly terminated membership | Floyd violated contract by harassing/bothering others; termination was justified | Plaintiff failed to perform; no breach by 24H; summary judgment for 24H |
| Breach of Implied Duties (Care & Good Faith) | 24H did not investigate or act fairly before termination | Reasonable steps taken in light of repeated complaints and opportunity to be heard | No breach or bad faith; summary judgment for 24H |
| UCL § 17200 Violation | 24H’s harassment policy/process was unfair or inadequate | Policy was reasonable; utility of protecting members outweighs any harm to Floyd | Conduct not unfair or injurious under UCL; summary judgment for 24H |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard; burden of proof for moving party)
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317 (implied covenant of good faith/fair dealing in contracts)
- Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal. 4th 811 (elements of breach of contract)
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (test for deciding limits on duty of care under public policy in tort)
- Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 607 (scope and policy limits on duty of care owed by business establishments)