Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV02758, Date: 2024-10-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02758    Hearing Date: October 7, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Homerin v. Equinox Fitness Culver City, Case no. 22SMCV02758

Hearing date October 7, 2024

Defendant Equinox’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff Homerin sues defendants Equinox Fitness Culver City and Stages Cycling, LLC for negligence and products liability claims arising out of an injury sustained while participating in an indoor cycling class. Plaintiff alleges one of Equinox’s employees negligently failed to properly secure the toe-cage on her bike, causing it to come loose, injuring her.

Equinox moves for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff signed an express waiver of liability and assumed the risk, barring her claim. Plaintiff’s counsel requests relief for untimely filing of plaintiff's opposition under Code Civ. Proc. §473(b) and opposes the motion.

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice of the TAC

Defendant Equinox requests judicial notice of the third amended complaint, filed 7/21/2023. The court may take judicial notice of its own files when requested pursuant to Evid. Code §452(d)(1). The TAC is part of the court’s record. GRANTED.

Defendant’s Evidentiary Objections to Voris Declaration

Defendant Equinox files 32 evidentiary objections to plaintiff’s declaration of Harvey Voris. Objections 1-8 OVERULED, objection 9-10 GRANTED (hearsay), objections 11-32 OVERULED.

Plaintiff’s Request for Relief from Untimely Filing of Opposition

Plaintiff’s opposition was filed one day late. Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a declaration, asserting the delay was due to technology failure on the eve of the filing deadline. Decl. Eballar para. 11.

Equinox argues the opposition should be disregarded as untimely. Equinox had sufficient time to prepare a reply, filed 10/2/2024. There is not significant prejudice due to the one-day delay, and plaintiff offered a reasonable explanation as to the brief delay. The court will consider plaintiff’s opposition on its merits. To do otherwise would be an unduly harsh result. If defendant was prejudiced by the one-day delay, the court will hear argument or consider brief continuance to allow defendant to have the full statutory time to reply.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgement

A court determining a summary judgment motion applies a three-step process: (1) identifying the issues framed by the complaint, (2) determining whether moving party made an adequate showing that negates the opponent’s claim, and (3) determining whether opposing party raised a triable issue of fact. Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654, 1662. "In order to state a cause of action for negligence, the complaint must allege facts sufficient to show a legal duty on the part of the defendant to use due care, a breach of such legal duty, and the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury." Bellah v. Greenson (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 614, 619.

Defendant argues the negligence claim is barred by an express waiver of liability, and plaintiff assumed the inherent primary risk of indoor cycling.

Both parties agree plaintiff attended an indoor cycling class and that indoor cycling carries inherent risks. SSAMF 1-2. Equinox argues plaintiff expressly assumed the risk by signing a liability waiver. UMF 4-8. Equinox also argues plaintiff was experienced. Plaintiff disputes existence of the waiver and argues Equinox employee teacher Amy Robertson substantially increased the risk of injury to plaintiff, defeating primary assumption of the risk. SSAMF 4-7.

Express Waiver of Liability

An express release of liability is enforceable so long as it is clear, unambiguous and explicit in expressing the parties’ intent. Sweat v. Big Time Auto Racing, Inc. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1304-05. “A valid release precludes liability for risks of injury within the scope of the release.” Grebing v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 631, 637.

Equinox argues plaintiff digitally signed a liability waiver. UMF 4-8. This creates a triable issue of material fact as to waiver and shifts the burden to plaintiff.

Plaintiff disputes knowledge of, and signature of, a waiver. SSAMF 4-7. Plaintiff asserts Equinox conducted a search, including a search of its national corporate database, and is unable to locate a waiver signed by plaintiff. PMF 9. Plaintiff asserts she never saw nor signed a waiver. PMF 7. Plaintiff argues she only presented a photo ID and signed in using an electronic signature sensor. PMF. 7. Plaintiff raised a triable issue of material fact regarding existence of a signed waiver.

Inherent Assumption of Primary Risk

Equinox argues even if the express waiver does not bar a negligence claim, plaintiff assumed the primary risk of indoor cycling, precluding liability. The "assumption of the risk" doctrine provides an exception to the general duty of care when a plaintiff is injured while voluntarily participating in a sporting activity that has inherent risks. See Luna v. Vela (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 102, 108.

In primary assumption of the risk, a plaintiff has voluntarily participated in an activity or sport that includes various inherent risks, thereby relieving defendant of a duty to use due care to avoid plaintiff suffering an injury as a result of those inherently risky aspects of the sport. See, e.g., Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 308-309, fns. 3-4, 315-316.

The parties do not dispute that plaintiff voluntarily participated in the indoor cycling class, nor do the parties dispute indoor cycling has inherent risks. SSAMF 1-2.

Equinox offers the declaration of fitness instructor Amy Robertson, who states indoor cycling carries inherent risks, such as muscle soreness, knee/back pain, foot numbness/tingling, dehydration and slipping off pedals if feet are not properly secured. UMF 2; Decl. Robertson para. 4. Equinox asserts plaintiff’s injury occurred as a result of her foot slipping off the pedal, an inherent primary risk of indoor cycling. Equinox provides evidence that injuries similar to plaintiff’s are inherent to the activity. The burden shifts to plaintiff to show a triable issue of material fact.

Plaintiff argues her injury did not arise from her foot slipping off a pedal, but from the bike’s left toe cage separating from the bike and taking her foot with it. PMF 13, 14. Plaintiff argues a component of the bike falling off is not an inherent risk of indoor cycling, so plaintiff did not assume the risk. Plaintiff provides the declaration of engineer Harvey Voris, a fitness machine designer and engineer, that the injury could arise as alleged and would be the instructor’s responsibility to prevent. Decl. Voris paras. 17-18.

Plaintiff also argues teacher Robertson increased the risk of harm to plaintiff. A defendant who substantially or unreasonably increases the inherent risk of an activity is liable for gross negligence, even if a waiver exists. Willhide-Michiulis v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, LLC (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 344, 358.

Plaintiff asserts she asked Robertson for help securing the left toe cage. PMF 10. Plaintiff asserts Robertson failed to properly warn her of potential risks prior to beginning the activity. PMF 20. Voris opines Robertson failed to properly secure the toe cage, resulting in injury. Decl. Voris para. 29.

Plaintiff argues Robertson undertook responsibility for the safety of newer and inexperienced class participants when she specifically targeted and repeatedly reassured those invited to her class “DO NOT stress” because she will “get them all set up.” PMF 4; Decl. Robertson ex. 4. Plaintiff further argues Robertson’s actions created a duty to identify inexperienced riders, and Equinox breached that duty via Robertson’s failure to properly attach the left toe cage. Plaintiff established a triable issue of fact as to whether Robertson substantially increased the risk of harm to plaintiff, thereby establishing a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff inherently assumed the primary risk of indoor cycling. DENIED.