918 F. Supp. 2d 708
S.D. Ohio2013Background
- Plaintiffs filed a class action in Ohio against Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Urban Active, alleging deceptive contract practices and related claims.
- Global Fitness removed the action to this court under CAFA, asserting numerous contractual and consumer-protection violations under OCSPA, OPECA, and ODTPA, among others.
- Plaintiffs asserted misrepresentations at sale, unauthorized withdrawals, failure to provide copies of contracts and cancellation notices, and failure to honor cancellations in Ohio facilities.
- Defendant moved for partial judgment on the pleadings in August 2011 and again in February 2012, seeking dismissal of several counts, including breach of contract and OCSPA/OPECA claims.
- In March 2012, the Court addressed the first motion; it denied some aspects and limited class claims under OCSPA and OPECA; the second motion remained unresolved at that time.
- In May 2012, Plaintiffs moved for certification or reconsideration to address whether consent judgments provide proper notice under RC 1345.09(B); the Court denied both requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Certification of Ohio law question on notice | Goes to whether consent judgments in PIF give prior notice under RC 1345.09(B). | Certification would delay and is not warranted; Ohio law is unsettled but has been decided below. | Denied |
| Motion for reconsideration on notice issue | Consent judgments in PIF provide prior notice; ask to reconsider or defer to Ohio Supreme Court. | No clear error; Charvat/Kline discussed; no manifest injustice. | Denied |
| Second Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings | Contract terms and notices show eligibility for OCSPA/OPECA claims; exhibits raise questions of contract validity. | Documents attached govern contract terms; exhibits authenticate the alleged agreements. | Denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1974) (certification discretionary; unsettled state law not mandatory)
- Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Duro Bag Mfg. Co., 50 F.3d 370 (6th Cir. 1995) (certification is not obligatory; used for unsettled issues)
- Pennington v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 553 F.3d 447 (6th Cir. 2009) (late certification requests disfavored)
- Marrone v. Phillips Morris USA, Inc., 850 N.E.2d 31 (Ohio 2006) (class action availability tied to public inspection of judgment)
- Robins v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, 838 F.Supp.2d 631 (N.D. Ohio 2012) (courts may consider contract copies attached to motions to dismiss if authenticity not challenged)
- Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613 (6th Cir. 2002) (Rule 59(e) standard for reconsideration)