Baxter

Baxter v. Salutary Sportsclubs, Inc.

Good Law
122 Cal. App. 4th 941·19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 317·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1612·2004 Daily Journal DAR 12115·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8865
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 28, 2004A105005California2,920 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pollak, J.

Cynthia Baxter brought this action under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 (UCL)) to ensure that membership contracts used by defendant Salutary Sportsclubs, Inc. (Salutary), conform precisely with the requirements of the Civil Code relating to health studio contracts. After a court trial in which Baxter obtained modest relief, she sought attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (section 1021.5), claiming she had enforced “an important right affecting the public interest.” The trial court disagreed and denied her motion. We agree with the trial court’s assessment of what this action has accomplished, and affirm.

Background

The scant record on appeal reveals the following facts. Salutary owns and operates several health clubs in California. Prior to the filing of the complaint on March 26, 2002, Abraham Camhy, attorney for Baxter, initiated an investigation into Salutary’s “contractual practices” by hiring “a private investigator posing as a consumer” to join one of Salutary’s facilities, thereby obtaining a copy of its service contract. Upon reviewing the contract, Baxter discovered it did not comply with the California statute…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.