Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Amid COVID-19 Pandemic, LA Fitness Customers Exercise to Work Out Their Monthly Fees

April 13, 2020 by Michael G. Zilber

As Americans face drastic changes to their daily routines due to the coronavirus, a South Florida plaintiff has brought a class action lawsuit against LA Fitness, alleging counts of unjust enrichment and negligence for LA Fitness’ alleged refusal to refund its members’ monthly fees.

In his complaint, Kip Barnett alleges that, at the beginning of March, he paid his LA Fitness membership fee. Due to the coronavirus, however, on March 16, LA Fitness closed its facilities for the remainder of the month. LA Fitness then notified its customers that all billing would be suspended, but not until April 1, 2020. Barnett then demanded LA Fitness to refund him and all its members their March fees. LA Fitness responded with an apology and an offer of two options: (1) a free additional one-month extension to the end of the membership; or (2) a three-month membership to give to a friend or family member. Yet, in order to redeem the offer, members are allegedly required to click on a hyperlink redirecting them to LA Fitness’ website and terms and conditions, which contains a “limitation of liability” provision.

Barnett then brought this lawsuit on behalf of the following class: “All persons who paid to Defendant [LA Fitness] membership fees for the month of March 2020 and have not received reimbursement for the time period of March 16, 2020 through March 31, 2020 during which Defendant’s facilities were closed.” Barnett first asserts an unjust enrichment count, alleging that LA Fitness voluntarily accepted and retained the benefits conferred upon it by Barnett and the class members even after it voluntarily closed its facilities. Thus, LA Fitness had been unjustly enriched and is required to refund Barnett and the class members the benefits they conferred. Barnett then asserts a negligence count, alleging that LA Fitness had a duty to Barnett and the class members to provide fitness facility services in exchange for the membership dues it collected from them for the month of March 2020; thus, LA Fitness breached this duty by failing to provide services from March 16, 2020, through March 31, 2020, and by failing to reimburse Barnett and the class members the membership fees that they paid.

This lawsuit comes at a time when lawyers are bracing for consumer class actions as COVID-19 hits pocketbooks and class action lawsuits related to the coronavirus have already spiked. This trend is likely more than just a warmup, and we can expect to see more class actions of a similar nature in the coming months.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Price Gouging During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Armas v. Amazon Inc.

Next Article »

The Next Wave Crashes Ashore With a Rising Tide of New COVID-19 Class Actions
Michael G. Zilber

About Michael G. Zilber

Michael G. Zilber isan associate at Carlton Fields in Miami, Florida. Connect with Michael on LinkedIn.

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • A Class Action Settlement With a Chocolate Company Melts Away: Eleventh Circuit Issues En Banc Decision on Article III Standing Principles
  • Sixth Circuit Rejects a Novel Concept: Certification of “Negotiation Class” in Opioid Multidistrict Litigation
  • An Unauthorized Bounty: Eleventh Circuit Strikes Named Plaintiff Incentive Payment

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.