An appellate court in California upheld the decision of a lower court in favor of 24 Hour Fitness in a class-action lawsuit.
In Turner v. 24 Hour Fitness, Tammie Turner represented similar plaintiffs who claimed that they did not receive a refund when their personal training sessions expired. Turner said she bought 20 half-training sessions at 24 Hour but was not made aware that the unused training sessions would expire if they were not used within six months. Turner did not use all of her 20 sessions.
In a filing last month, the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Eight, upheld the lower court’s ruling that Turner failed to show that 24 Hour had violated the Unfair Competition Law.
Evan W. Granowitz initially brought the action in 2007 on behalf of a similar class of members who bought personal training sessions at 24 Hour. Granowitz alleged that he purchased five one-hour sessions but was unable to schedule them outside of his work hours because of an insufficient number of personal trainers. He also alleged that he was not allowed to view the fitness service agreement until after he purchased the sessions.
At the hearing on the second amended complaint, Granowitz revealed that he worked for the law firm that represented him. He was granted leave in the case as he could not serve as both a class representative and class counsel. Turner was substituted in as class representative in the fifth amended complaint.