A judge dismissed three claims and allowed four claims to move forward in a lawsuit against SoulCycle related to class certificates Photo by Getty Images

A judge dismissed three claims and allowed four claims to move forward in a lawsuit against SoulCycle related to class certificates. (Photo by Getty Images.)

Judge Allows SoulCycle Class Certificate Suit to Move Forward

A judge dismissed three claims in a class action lawsuit against SoulCycle, New York, related to the expiration periods on class certificates but allowed four of the claims to move forward.

A judge ruled on Monday that a class action lawsuit against SoulCycle, New York, related to the expiration periods on class certificates would move forward. SoulCycle had requested in September that the case be dismissed.

Filed in August 2015 by Rachel Cody, the lawsuit alleges that SoulCycle sells series class certificates with short expiration periods and does not refund money if purchasers do not redeem them prior to expiration. 

Cody contended that she spent $30 on a single class certificate for a future class, but the certificate had a 30-day lifespan and expired before she could use it. The lawsuit alleges that the way SoulCycle's class certificates are sold classifies them as gift certificates. Because the duration of the certificate was under a year and state law requires that gift certificates remain good for at least five years, Cody claimed SoulCycle violated the Credit Card Accountability and Disclosure Act.  

On Monday, Chief U.S. District Judge George H. King, in response to a request by SoulCycle to dismiss the case, ruled in U.S. District Court, Central California District that four of the seven claims in the suit could move forward.

The judge allowed these four claims to move forward:

  • Violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) as amended by the Credit Card Accountability and Disclosure Act (CARD)
  • Violation of California Civil Code
  • Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
  • Declaratory Judgment

The judge dismissed these three claims:

  • Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA)
  • Unjust Enrichment (dismissed with prejudice as a claim but without prejudice to plaintiff’s seeking it as a remedy)
  • Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (dismissed with prejudice)

The plaintiff has 30 days to file a second amended complaint related to the dismissed CLRA claim, according to the judge. If the plaintiff elects not to file a second amended complaint, then SoulCycle shall answer the remaining claims within 14 days. If the plaintiff files a second amended complaint, the defendant shall respond to it within 30 days thereafter, according to the ruling.

The lawsuit comes as SoulCycle is poised to go public. The company filed documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission for an initial public offering in July. In December, the company updated the IPO filing to include that it would be listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol SLCY. 

Last week, Target announced a partnership with SoulCycle to offer free 45-minutes classes in 10 cities during January and February. 

Hide comments

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Publish