Robins v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5606
| N.D. Ohio | 2012Background
- This is a removed case in which Global Fitness Holdings, LLC moves to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint.
- Plaintiffs bring contract, consumer protection, and RICO-related claims arising from membership and personal training contracts at Urban Active Fitness facilities.
- Contracts chosen Ohio or Kentucky law; EFTs are authorized monthly via members’ payment methods.
- Global argues cancellation provisions, fees, and integration clauses foreclose claims; exhibits are considered central to claims.
- Court applies Twombly/Iqbal standard; assesses each count against contract terms, cancellation provisions, and statutory requirements.
- Court grants dismissal in whole with prejudice for most claims, but allows non-prejudice breach of contract and EFTA claims for Baker and Green.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract viability | Robins, Zadiraka, Odelli, Baker, Green rely on cancellation/fees terms. | Contracts and cancellation forms foreclose breach claims; integration clauses bar misrepresentations. | Counts dismissed with prejudice (breach claims barred by contract terms and integration). |
| Unjust enrichment viability | Global retained fees after cancellation without contract basis. | There is a valid contract covering the challenged charges; unjust enrichment not available. | Dismissed with prejudice. |
| Fraud claim viability | Oral representations induced contracts and misrepresented terms. | Integration clauses bar fraud claims based on prior or contemporaneous statements. | Dismissed with prejudice. |
| OCSPA/OPECA class claims viability | Global’s practices violate OCSPA/OPECA and class treatment is warranted. | Lack of proper prior notice; industry-specific requirements not met; contracts already comply. | Counts Four and Five dismissed with prejudice. |
| RICO standing and enterprise viability | Post-cancellation EFTs and processing vendors form an association-in-fact enterprise. | Processors were unwitting ordinary service providers; no common fraudulent purpose or enterprise. | Counts Eight and Nine dismissed with prejudice. |
| EFTA claim viability | Unauthorized post-cancellation transfers violated EFTA. | Nearly all EFTs were authorized by written contracts; only a de minimis $1 issue disputed. | Counts dismissed with prejudice except for Baker and Green which are dismissed without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must include enough facts to state a plausible claim)
- Pavlovich v. Nat’l City Bank, 435 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2006) (elements of breach of contract complaints and pleading standards)
- Moon v. Harrison Piping Supply, 465 F.3d 719 (6th Cir. 2006) (RICO enterprise pattern framework)
- Waldron v. Chase Home Fin. L.L.C., 2009 WL 1870916 (E.D. La. 2009) (administration of exhibits to motions to dismiss; centrality of documents)
- Dawson v. Blockbuster, Inc., 2006-Ohio-1240 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. 2006) (DTPA/FTPA analogy and standing guidance in DTPA context)