Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: "Latimer vs. Ultimate Fitness Group, LLC", Date: 2022-08-15 Tentative Ruling

The motion by defendant Ultimate Fitness Group, LLC (“UFG”) for summary judgment in its favor and against plaintiff Kelly Latimer (“plaintiff”) is GRANTED.

Summary Judgment Standards

The pleadings define the issues for a summary judgment motion. (Benedek v. PLC Santa Monica (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1355)

Under CCP 437c(p)(2), a defendant seeking summary judgment must show that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action.

“The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850) The burden will shift to the plaintiff only if a defendant meets its initial burden. (Mackey v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2019) 31 Cal.App.4th 640, 662).

Plaintiff’s Complaint states one cause of action for gross negligence.

On 10/8/2018, plaintiff, a member of OrangeTheory Fitness (“OTF”) gym was attending a “stations class” where members work out on the floor, rowing machines and treadmills.  (Complaint ¶¶8-11) She stumbled and fell while running on the treadmill, (Id. at ¶12) and was tossed into the rowing machines located directly behind the treadmill. (Id. at ¶13) Upon hitting the rowing machines, plaintiff was tossed forward and sustained significant injuries. (Id. at ¶14)

At the time of the incident, the owner’s manual for the subject treadmill required at least eight feet of clearance behind the treadmill and two feet of clearance on either side to prevent injury. (Id. at ¶16) However, the treadmill plaintiff was running on had approximately 3 feet of clearance behind it and 6 inches of clearance on each side. (Id. at ¶17)

Defendants had access to the owner’s manual for the treadmill and knew or should have known about the clearance requirements, (Id. at ¶18) but intentionally placed all such machines, including the treadmill plaintiff was using, in a manner that violated the manufacturer’s explicit safety zone requirements, (Id. at ¶20) Defendants placed the exercise machines too close together so they could have more machines for more customers in a smaller space for more profit. (Id. at ¶36) Placing exercise machines in the safety zone greatly increases the risk of injury to the gym user. (Id. at ¶32) Defendants’ failure to follow the manufacturer’s requirements was a breach of duty and extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care (Id. at ¶39) and caused plaintiff’s injuries because she fell in the safety zone area. (Id. at ¶¶21, 41)

Preliminary Matter – Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”)

UFG’s RJN is GRANTED.  The court takes judicial notice of the existence of the court records but not of the truth of the matter asserted therein. (Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482-483)]

Merits

UFG did not owe a duty to plaintiff as the franchisor of the fitness studio.

(Although UFG raises several arguments in its memorandum of points and authorities, its Separate Statement contains material facts related to one issue only, whether it owed a duty to plaintiff as the franchisor.)

A franchisor is potentially liable for a franchisee’s actions only if it has retained or assumed a general right of control over the day-to-day aspects of the franchisee’s employees or retained or assumed a general right to control various factors such as hiring, direction, supervision and discipline. (Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza LLC (2014) 60 Cal.4th 474, 497)

An agency relationship exists only where the franchise agreement gives the franchisor the right of complete or substantial control over the franchisees. (Cislaw v. Southland Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1288). Whether a principal-agency relationship exists is determined by the right to control the means and manner in which the result is achieved. (Ibid.) Although the question of whether a franchisee is an independent contractor or an agent is customarily a question of fact, depending upon whether the franchisor exercises complete or substantial control over the franchisee, the determination will be made as a matter of law when the essential facts are not in conflict. (Ibid.)

UFG’s Separate Statement establishes that MJD operated OTF pursuant to a franchise agreement with UFG entered into on 10/16/2015 (UMF 4-5); that the parties contracted as independent contractors and that nothing in the franchise agreement created an agency relationship (UMF 6). UFG did not own, lease, occupy, control, manage or operate the fitness studio (UMF 7). MJD was responsible for inspecting and maintaining the gym equipment (UMF 8), and MJD was solely responsible for exercising ordinary business control over the fitness studio including the day-to-day operations of the studio. (UMF 9).

Based on these undisputed facts, UFG established that it owed no duty to plaintiff and is not liable for MJD’s actions with respect to plaintiff’s injuries at OTF. As plaintiff did not oppose UFG’s motion, she failed to raise a triable issue of material fact, such that UFG is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

UFG is to give Notice of Ruling and submit a proposed Judgment.