TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is GRANTED, in part.
Defendant 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.'s ("Defendant") notice of motion states the motion for summary judgment is based on the argument the claims are barred by the express liability release provision in Plaintiff's Membership Agreement. Defendant alternatively seeks adjudication of the following issues: ISSUE NO 1: Whether Plaintiff's negligence based causes of action are barred by the express release of liability in Plaintiff's Membership Agreement (SSUF Nos. 1 -38)
ISSUE NO 2: Whether Defendant's Tenth Affirmative Defense based on the assumption of risk and liability release in Plaintiff's Membership Agreement applies to defeat Plaintiffs claims for ordinary negligence against Defendant. (SSUF Nos. 1 - 38)
ISSUE NO. 3: Whether Plaintiff's products liability cause of action does not apply to Defendant because the dominant purpose of Pla
Hearing Date
August 01, 2019
Category
Civil - Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is GRANTED, in part.
Defendant 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.'s ("Defendant") notice of motion states the motion for summary judgment is based on the argument the claims are barred by the express liability release provision in Plaintiff's Membership Agreement. Defendant alternatively seeks adjudication of the following issues: ISSUE NO 1: Whether Plaintiff's negligence based causes of action are barred by the express release of liability in Plaintiff's Membership Agreement (SSUF Nos. 1 -38)
ISSUE NO 2: Whether Defendant's Tenth Affirmative Defense based on the assumption of risk and liability release in Plaintiff's Membership Agreement applies to defeat Plaintiffs claims for ordinary negligence against Defendant. (SSUF Nos. 1 - 38)
ISSUE NO. 3: Whether Plaintiff's products liability cause of action does not apply to Defendant because the dominant purpose of Pla