Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Georgia_Northern_District_Court/1--20-cv-01868/Holloway_v._Planet_Fitness_Franchising_LLC_et_al/1/
Timestamp: 2020-07-12 21:46:19
Document Index: 148641294

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1332', '§ 1332', '§ 1367', '§ 1391', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10']

Holloway v. Planet Fitness Franchising LLC et al, 1:20-cv-01868, No. 1 (N.D.Ga. Apr. 30, 2020)
Case 1:20-cv-01868-CAP Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 1 of 21
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`CASE NO. _______________
`ANTONIO HOLLOWAY, individually
`and on behalf of all others similarly
`PLANET FITNESS FRANCHISING
`LLC, a Delaware limited liability
`company; ALDER PARTNERS LLC, a
`Delaware limited liability company; and
`PF JONESBORO, LLC, a Delaware
`limited liability company,
`Plaintiff Antonio Holloway (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated, alleges the following against Defendants Planet Fitness
`Franchising LLC, Alder Partners LLC, and PF Jonesboro, LLC (collectively,
`“Defendants”) based on personal knowledge as to his own experience, on
`information and belief, and on investigation of counsel as to all other matters.
`Case 1:20-cv-01868-CAP Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 2 of 21
`Plaintiff brings this action, individually and on behalf of all others
`similarly situated, against Defendants for unlawfully charging Plaintiff and Class
`members monthly fitness center membership fees after Defendants’ facilities were
`already closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
`Rather than providing adequate customer service to address these
`wrongful charges, Defendants have hidden behind a single, inaccurate statement on
`their website regarding the charges and have redirected all billing inquiries, both via
`online chat and telephone, to a telephone number that indicates Defendants are
`closed for business. Thus, Defendants have even prevented Plaintiff and Class
`members with a method to inquire about and/or dispute these charges.
`By debiting these post-closure charges, Defendants breached its
`agreements with Plaintiff and Class members, who suffered monetary losses in the
`monthly amounts charged. Plaintiff and Class Members seek to recover damages
`caused by Defendants’ breaches of contract, violations of Georgia’s consumer
`protection statutes, and unjust enrichment.
`Case 1:20-cv-01868-CAP Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 3 of 21
`Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of DeKalb County, Georgia. On or
`about January 8, 2015, Plaintiff entered into a “Black Card Reciprocal Access”
`membership agreement with Defendants for unlimited access to any of their fitness
`centers for $19.99 per month. Plaintiff’s membership has been month-to-month
`since early 2016. During the first week of March 2020, Defendants closed the Planet
`Fitness located in Stone Mountain, Georgia, the fitness center Plaintiff regularly
`utilized, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 18, 2020, Defendants
`nonetheless debited the full $19.99 monthly fee from Plaintiff’s bank account. When
`Plaintiff attempted to contact Defendants, both via telephone and online chat, all of
`his inquiries were redirected to a telephone number that simply states Defendants
`“are closed,” with no option to leave a message, request a refund, or visit a fitness
`center to seek a refund for the wrongfully debited charges. As a result of Defendants’
`conduct, Plaintiff has been injured in the amount charged since Defendants’ fitness
`centers have closed.
`Defendant Planet Fitness Franchising LLC is a Delaware limited
`liability company that maintains its headquarters in Hampton, New Hampshire, and
`Case 1:20-cv-01868-CAP Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 4 of 21
`is the national franchisor and operator Planet Fitness, one of the largest fitness club
`franchises in the United States, with nearly 2,000 fitness centers nationwide.
`Defendant Alder Partners LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
`that maintains its headquarters in Middleton, Massachusetts, and is the Planet Fitness
`franchisee at which Plaintiff maintains his membership.
`Defendant PF Jonesboro, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
`that maintains its headquarters in Jonesboro, Georgia, and is the Planet Fitness
`franchisee at which Plaintiff began his membership.
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
`as amended by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, because the matter in
`controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action
`in which some members of the Class are citizens of states different than Defendants.
`See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A). This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over
`state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they are
`registered to conduct business within Georgia and/or each have sufficient minimum
`contacts with the state of Georgia, including operating fitness centers within this
`Case 1:20-cv-01868-CAP Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 5 of 21
`district. Defendants intentionally avail themselves of clients, consumers, and
`markets within the state of Georgia through the promotion, marketing, and sale of
`their fitness centers and membership services.
`10. Venue properly lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2)
`because, as noted above, a substantial part of the events and/or omissions giving rise
`to the claims occurred, in part, within this district.
`11. Defendants own and operate approximately 1,900 fitness centers
`throughout the United States, making Planet Fitness one of the largest fitness
`franchises in the country.
`12. As part of their “Black Card” membership, Defendants promise
`unlimited access to their fitness centers at any franchise location. Further,
`Defendants warrant through advertising at Planet Fitness locations and via other
`forms of media that members have unlimited to access to Planet Fitness facilities
`nationwide.
`13. Starting in early March 2020, Defendants began quietly closing all of
`its fitness center locations indefinitely, ultimately shuttering all locations nationwide
`by the end of that month.
`Case 1:20-cv-01868-CAP Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 6 of 21
`14. On the Planet Fitness website, Defendants asserted that no members
`would be charged membership fees for time periods when their fitness centers were
`closed, while admitting that “some of our members [were] billed shortly before we
`closed.”
`Planet
`Fitness
`https://www.planetfitness.com/coronavirus-faq. Rather than offering a means to
`recoup any wrongfully billed charges that occurred after closure dates, Defendants
`admits its plan to retain those funds until some future opening date, indicating “We
`will make an adjustment on your next billing cycle when we reopen.” Id.
`15. Plaintiff charged two weeks after his local Planet Fitness facility has
`closed, and his attempts to contact Defendants online and via telephone were all
`directed to an automated telephone message that Defendants were closed until
`further notice, without any option to inquire about or seek a refund for his March
`membership charge.
`16. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that many other Planet
`Fitness members suffered the same post-closure charges and faced the same
`obstacles to reaching Defendants to request a refund. See, e.g., Spencer Jakab, This
`Gym Chain Has Reason to Sweat: Budget gym chain Planet Fitness says it was too
`late to call off plans to charge customers for March, and customers can cancel their
`Case 1:20-cv-01868-CAP Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 7 of 21
`memberships by visiting its locations—which are closed, The Wall Street Journal,
`Mar. 23, 2020, https://www.wsj.com/articles/this-gym-chain-has-reason-to-sweat-
`11584986375; Thornton McEnery, Planet Fitness members outraged over March
`bill amid coronavirus closures, NEW YORK POST, Mar. 19, 2020,
`https://nypost.com/2020/03/19/planet-fitness-members-outraged-over-march-bill-
`amid-coronavirus-closures/.
`17. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the following
`classes and subclass (collectively “Class” or “Classes”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
`23:
`National Class
`All persons in the United States who were charged membership fees
`by Defendants after their fitness centers were closed due to the
`COVID-19 virus.
`In the alternative to the National Class, Plaintiff brings this
`action individually and on behalf of the following state subclass:
`Georgia Class
`All persons in Georgia who were charged membership fees by
`Defendants after their fitness centers were closed due to the COVID-
`19 virus.
`Case 1:20-cv-01868-CAP Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 8 of 21
`19. Excluded from the Classes are Defendants, their affiliates, officers,
`directors, assigns, successors, and the Judge(s) assigned to this case. Plaintiff
`reserves the right to modify, change, or expand the definitions of the Classes based
`on discovery and further investigation.
`20. Numerosity: While the precise number of Class Members has not yet
`been determined, members of the Classes are so numerous that their individual
`joinder is impracticable, as the proposed Classes appear to include millions of
`members who are geographically dispersed. Upon information and belief,
`Defendants have millions of members across the United States.
`Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of Class Members’ claims.
`Plaintiff and all Class Members were injured through Defendants’ uniform
`misconduct. The same event and conduct that gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims are
`identical to those that give rise to the claims of every other Class Member because
`Plaintiff and each Class Member was wrongfully charged membership fees in the
`same way by the same conduct by Defendants.
`22. Adequacy: Plaintiff is an adequate representatives of the Classes
`because Plaintiff’s interests do not conflict with the interests of the Classes that he
`seeks to represent; Plaintiff has retained counsel that are competent and highly
`Case 1:20-cv-01868-CAP Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 9 of 21
`experienced in class action litigation; and Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel intend to
`prosecute this action vigorously. The interests of the Classes will be fairly and
`adequately protected by Plaintiff and his counsel.
`23. Superiority: A class action is superior to other available means of fair
`and efficient adjudication of the claims of Plaintiff and the Class Members. The
`injury suffered by each individual Class Member, one month of gym membership,
`is relatively small in comparison to the burden and expense of individual prosecution
`of complex and expensive litigation. It would be very difficult if not impossible for
`Class Members individually to effectively redress Defendants’ wrongdoing. Even if
`Class Members could afford such individual litigation, the court system could not.
`Individualized litigation presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory
`judgments. Individualized litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties,
`and to the court system, presented by the complex legal and factual issues of the
`case. By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties
`and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and
`comprehensive supervision by a single court.
`Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Fact and
`Law: Common questions of law and fact exist as to Plaintiff and all Class Members.
`Case 1:20-cv-01868-CAP Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 10 of 21
`These questions predominate over the questions affecting individual Class
`Members. These common legal and factual questions include, but are not limited to,
`the following:
`• whether Defendants engaged in the wrongful conduct alleged herein;
`• whether Defendants violated state laws in charging the March 2020
`membership fees without permitting fitness center access;
`• whether Defendants breached its contracts with Plaintiff and Class
`members by charging the March 2020 membership fees without
`permitting fitness center access;
`• whether Defendants breached its express warranty with Plaintiff and
`Class members by charging the March 2020 membership fees without
`• whether Defendants negligently misrepresented unlimited access to their
`fitness centers while continuing to charge Plaintiff and Class members
`after closure;
`• whether Defendants fraudulently misrepresented unlimited access to
`their fitness centers while continuing to charge Plaintiff and Class
`members after closure;
`Case 1:20-cv-01868-CAP Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 11 of 21
`• whether Defendants have been unjustly enriched by retaining March
`2020 membership fees from Plaintiff and Class members despite closing
`its facilities in March; and
`• whether Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to recover damages,
`equitable relief, and other relief, and the extent of the remedies that
`should be afforded to Plaintiff and Class Members.
`25. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable
`to Plaintiff and the other Class Members, thereby making appropriate final injunctive
`relief and declaratory relief with respect to the Classes as a whole.
`26. Given that Defendants have engaged in a common course of conduct as
`to Plaintiff and the Class Members, similar or identical injuries and common law
`and statutory violations are involved, and common questions outweigh any potential
`individual questions.
`27. The Classes are defined in terms of objective characteristics and
`common transactional facts; namely, the exposure of sensitive Personal Information
`to cyber criminals due to Defendants’ failure to protect this information, adequately
`warn the Classes that adequate data security measures were not in place, and failure
`to adequately warn of the Data Breach. Class membership will be readily
`Case 1:20-cv-01868-CAP Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 12 of 21
`ascertainable from Defendants’ business records, and/or from records of third
`28. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all previous allegations.
`29. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
`the proposed Nationwide Class against Defendants. In the alternative, Plaintiff
`brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the proposed Georgia
`Subclass against Defendants.
`Defendants entered into contracts with Plaintiff and Class members to
`provide access to fitness centers in exchange for the payment of membership fees.
`Defendants breached these contracts by charging and retaining Plaintiff’s and Class
`members’ full membership fees while all of its fitness centers are closed. Plaintiff
`and Class members have suffered an injury, in an amount to be proven at trial,
`through the payment of membership fees while not having access to Defendants’
`fitness centers.
`BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY
`31. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all previous allegations.
`Case 1:20-cv-01868-CAP Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 13 of 21
`32. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
`In connection with the sale of their fitness center memberships,
`Defendants issues an express warranty that Plaintiff and Class Members would have
`unlimited access to all fitness center locations.
`34. Defendants’ affirmation of fact and promise in Defendants’ marketing
`and signage became part of the basis of the bargain between Defendants and Plaintiff
`and Class members, thereby creating express warranties that the services would
`conform to Defendants’ affirmation of fact and promise.
`35. Defendants breached their express warranty because Defendants are not
`providing unlimited access to all fitness center locations, instead charging and
`retaining the full amount of its monthly membership fees while all of its fitness
`centers are closed.
`36. Plaintiff and the Class members were injured as a direct and proximate
`result of Defendants’ breach because: (a) they would not have purchased or paid for
`Defendants’ fitness center memberships absent Defendants’ representations and
`Case 1:20-cv-01868-CAP Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 14 of 21
`omission of a warning that it would retain all membership fees while fitness centers
`nationwide are closed; (b) they would not have purchased fitness center
`memberships on the same terms absent Defendants’ representations and omissions;
`(c) they paid a price premium for Defendants’ “Black Card” membership based on
`Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions; and (d) Defendants’ fitness center
`memberships did not have the characteristics, benefits, or quantities as promised.
`NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
`37. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all previous allegations.
`38. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
`39. Defendants misrepresented that Plaintiff and Class members would
`have unlimited access to all fitness center locations, when in fact Defendants are not
`providing unlimited access and instead charging and retaining the full amount of its
`monthly membership fees while all of its fitness centers are closed.
`Case 1:20-cv-01868-CAP Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 15 of 21
`40. At the time Defendants made these representations, Defendant knew or
`should have known these representations were false or made them without adequate
`knowledge of their veracity.
`41. Defendants thus negligently misrepresented and/or omitted material
`facts about its fitness center memberships and services.
`42. The negligent misrepresentations and omissions made by Defendants,
`upon which Plaintiff and Class Members reasonably relied, were intended to induce
`and actually did induce Plaintiff and Class Members to purchase Defendants’ fitness
`center memberships.
`43. Plaintiff and Class Members would not have purchased Defendants’
`fitness center memberships or would not have purchased the memberships on the
`same terms if they had known the truth about Defendants’ misrepresentations and
`omissions.
`44. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been injured as a result
`of Defendants’ negligent misrepresentations and omissions and are entitled to
`damages and/or restitution in an amount to be proven at trial.
`FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
`45. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all previous allegations.
`Case 1:20-cv-01868-CAP Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 16 of 21
`46. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
`47. Defendants knowingly misrepresented that Plaintiff and Class members
`would have unlimited access to all fitness center locations, when in fact Defendants
`are not providing unlimited access and instead charging and retaining the full amount
`of its monthly membership fees while all of its fitness centers are closed.
`48. Defendants thus intentionally misrepresented and/or omitted material
`49. The misrepresentations and omissions made by Defendants, upon
`which Plaintiff and Class Members reasonably relied, were intended to induce and
`actually did induce Plaintiff and Class Members to purchase Defendants’ fitness
`50. Plaintiff and Class Members would not have purchased Defendants’
`Case 1:20-cv-01868-CAP Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 17 of 21
`51. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been injured as a result
`of Defendants’ fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions and are entitled to
`COUNT V
`VIOLATION OF GEORGIA’S UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE
`PRACTICES ACT, Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-370, et seq. and § 10-1-390, et seq.
`52. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all previous allegations.
`53. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
`the proposed Georgia Subclass against Defendants.
`54. Defendants’ actions and/or omissions as described herein violated the
`Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-370, et seq.
`and § 10-1-390, et seq. (“UDTPA”), which was enacted to protect the consumer
`public from those who engage in unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or
`practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce.
`55. Specifically, Defendants knowingly misrepresented and intentionally
`omitted material information regarding its fitness center memberships by failing to
`disclose the potential for closures and continuing to charge membership fees after
`nationwide closures.
`Case 1:20-cv-01868-CAP Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 18 of 21
`56. Defendants’ misrepresentations and concealment of material facts
`unconscionable
`practices,
`deception,
`fraud,
`misrepresentation, and/or the knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of
`material facts with the intent that others rely on such concealment, suppression, or
`omission in connection with the sale and use of Defendants’ fitness center
`membership services in violated of the UDTPA.
`57. Defendants’ violation of the UDTPA is continuing, with no indication
`that Defendants will cease.
`58. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ UDTPA violations,
`Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer ascertainable
`damages and are entitled to all appropriate relief, including but not limited to
`damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees.
`COUNT VI
`UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`59. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all previous allegations.
`60. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
`Case 1:20-cv-01868-CAP Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 19 of 21
`61. Plaintiff and Class Members conferred a monetary benefit upon
`Defendants in the form of membership fees Defendants collected for unlimited
`fitness center access.
`62. Defendants appreciated and had knowledge of the benefits conferred
`upon them by Plaintiff and Class Members.
`63. Defendants failed to provide unlimited fitness center access in
`exchange for the membership fees it collected from Plaintiff and Class Members.
`64. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members
`suffered actual damages in an amount equal to all membership fees paid for the time
`period Defendants’ fitness centers were actually closed.
`65. Under principals of equity and good conscience, Defendants should not
`be permitted to retain the money belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members because
`Defendants continued to collect membership fees after closure of their fitness
`66. Defendants should be compelled to disgorge into a common fund for
`the benefit of Plaintiff and Class Members all unlawful or inequitable proceeds
`received by it as a result of the conduct alleged herein.
`Case 1:20-cv-01868-CAP Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 20 of 21
`Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, respectfully requests that the
`Court grant the following relief:
`Certify this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and
`(b), and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), appoint Plaintiff as Class representative
`and his counsel as Class counsel.
`Award Plaintiff and the Class appropriate monetary relief, including
`actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, restitution, and disgorgement.
`Award Plaintiff and the Class equitable, injunctive, and declaratory
`relief as may be appropriate. Plaintiff, on behalf of the Class, seeks appropriate
`injunctive relief designed to, inter alia, ensure against the recurrence of membership
`charges while Defendants’ fitness centers remain closed.
`Award Plaintiff and the Class pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
`to the maximum extent allowable.
`Award Plaintiff and the Class reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as
`allowable.
`Award Plaintiff and the Class such other favorable relief as allowable
`under law or at equity.
`Case 1:20-cv-01868-CAP Document 1 Filed 04/30/20 Page 21 of 21
`Plaintiff requests a trial by jury for all claims so triable.
`s/ Andrea S. Hirsch
`Andrea S. Hirsch (GA Bar No. 666557)
`THE HIRSCH LAW FIRM
`230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2260
`Atlanta, Georgia 30303
`Telephone: 404-487-6552
`Facsimile: 678-541-9356
`andrea@thehirschlawfirm.com
`Tina Wolfson (CA Bar No. 174806)*
`AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
`10728 Lindbrook Drive
`Los Angeles, California 90024
`Tel: 310-474-9111
`Fax: 310-474-8585
`Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
`* Pro hac vice application forthcoming
`Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative
`Classes