Gascho v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42366

This is a CAFA removal and class-action case involving Global Fitness Holdings, LLC (Urban Active) and Ohio residents who entered fitness, training, childcare, and tanning contracts.
Plaintiffs allege misrepresentation, improper account deductions, failure to provide contracts or cancellation notices, and other practices under Ohio consumer statutes and common law.
The original complaint was filed in state court; a First Amended Complaint added named plaintiffs and expanded putative classes.
Global Fitness removed to federal court under CAFA, and Plaintiffs moved to remand arguing untimeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
The Magistrate Judge recommended denying remand, and the District Judge fully reviewed timeliness, CAFA jurisdiction, and related issues, then denied remand and addressed Defendant’s Partial Judgment on the Pleadings.
The Court ultimately dismisses the DTPA and conversion claims, narrows the CSPA/PECA class claims to cancellation-related conduct, and allows other claims to proceed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of removal under §1446(b).	Gascho argued removal was untimely (31 days after service).	Removal timely under Holston/Mozee: knowledge obtained after review of records triggers 30-day window.	Timely removal; 30-day clock started after reviewing information showing removability.
Whether CAFA jurisdiction was properly invoked.	CAFA amount in controversy and class size unclear from pleading.	Defendant reviewed internal data; CAFA met once removal occurred within 30 days of discovery of removability.	CAFA jurisdiction supported; removal proper.
CSPA/PECA class claims—prior notice requirement and scope.	Plaintiffs can pursue class claims despite not identifying prior notice at this stage.	Class actions under CSPA/PECA require prior notice; only some cases provide adequate notice.	Class claims limited to cancellation-related conduct already deemed violative by Silzar; other CSPA/PECA theories dismissed for lack of notice.
Standing under Ohio DTPA (Count IV).	Individuals may bring DTPA claims.	DTPA covers commercial activity; individuals lack standing.	DTPA claim dismissed for lack of standing by an individual.
Unjust enrichment and conversion (Counts V and VI).	Unjust enrichment as alternative theory; conversion for money.	Unjust enrichment barred where contract governs; conversion requires segregated money.	Unjust enrichment survives as an alternative theory; conversion dismissed for lack of segregated money.

Seaton v. Jabe, 992 F.2d 79 (6th Cir. 1993) (strict 30-day removal rule applied; timely, when removable facts arise)
Brierly v. Alusuisse Flexible Packaging, Inc., 184 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 1999) (removal timeliness; ambiguity resolved in favor of remand)
Tech Hills II Assoc. v. Phoenix Home Life Mut. Ins. Co., 5 F.3d 963 (6th Cir. 1993) (distinguishes between face-of-pleading removability and second paragraph timing)
Holston (unpublished), — (6th Cir. 1991) (instructive on §1446(b) second paragraph timing (informational trigger))
Mozee v. Dugger, 616 F. Supp. 2d 672 (W.D. Ky. 2009) (knowledge triggering 30-day period when removability becomes known)
Marrone v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 110 Ohio St.3d 5, 850 N.E.2d 31 (Ohio 2006) (class-action notice under CSPA requires prior determinations of deception)
McKinney v. Bayer Corp., 744 F. Supp. 2d 733 (N.D. Ohio 2010) (recognizes CSPA class-action limitations in federal court")
Robins v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, 838 F. Supp. 2d 631 (N.D. Ohio 2012) (similar factual posture; cited for supplemental authority)