227 Cal. App. 4th 571
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2004 Zahra Naser signed a two-page Lakeridge Athletic Club membership agreement containing a bolded release stating the member "assumes all liability" for injuries at the club, including those caused by the club’s negligence, and acknowledging she read the agreement.
- In January 2009 Naser slipped on a puddle in the locker room after using the sauna, injuring her knee; mats were adjacent to lockers but not next to benches.
- Naser sued for negligence (premises liability). Lakeridge moved for summary judgment relying on the agreement’s release and assumption of risk language.
- Naser opposed, arguing the release violated the Health Studio Act (Civ. Code § 1812.80 et seq.), did not cover non-exercise-related accidents, and was ambiguous.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Lakeridge, ruling the release was enforceable and covered the slip-and-fall as a risk related to health-club use; judgment and costs were entered for Lakeridge.
- On appeal the court affirmed the summary judgment and also affirmed the trial court’s award of costs (including jury fee and deposition/records-subpoena costs).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of release under Health Studio Act | Naser: release violates Civ. Code § 1812.80 et seq., so unenforceable | Lakeridge: release complies with statute; valid waiver of liability | Release valid; Act did not invalidate the agreement |
| Scope of release (exercise-related limitation) | Naser: accident not exercise-related so release doesn’t apply; ambiguous wording | Lakeridge: release covered activities at club including locker room hazards tied to facility use | Release applied; locker-room slip was a typical hazard related to club use |
| Ambiguity of waiver | Naser: language ambiguous as to negligence and non-exercise injuries | Lakeridge: language was clear and unambiguous, signed acknowledgment reinforced enforceability | No ambiguity; waiver clear and enforceable |
| Recoverability of costs (jury fee & records deposition costs) | Naser: jury fee unnecessary; bulk of deposition costs were photocopying and not allowable | Lakeridge: jury fee required to preserve jury right; deposition subpoena/records costs were for business-records depositions and reasonably necessary | Court allowed jury fee and records-deposition costs as recoverable; costs affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn., 19 Cal.App.4th 761 (1993) (trial court’s determination whether cost item was necessary reviewed for abuse of discretion; statutory limits govern costs)
- Baker-Hoey v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 111 Cal.App.4th 592 (2003) (question whether cost is statutorily authorized reviewed de novo)
- Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader, 156 Cal.App.4th 123 (2007) (business-records subpoenas treated as depositions under discovery statutes)
- California Shellfish Inc. v. United Shellfish Co., 56 Cal.App.4th 16 (1997) (business-records deposition subpoena allows obtaining records without custodian testimony)