In re Life Time Fitness, Inc., Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Litigation
Opinion of the Court
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel:
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization of this litigation in the District of Minnesota will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations that Life Time sent unsolicited commercial text messages to plaintiffs’ (and the putative
All the parties support the selection of the District of Minnesota as the most appropriate transferee district for pretrial proceedings in this litigation. We concur. Life Time is located in the District of Minnesota, and therefore relevant documents and witnesses also are likely to be located there. The district is both convenient and accessible for the majority of the parties. We are convinced that the District of Minnesota has the necessary judicial resources and expertise to efficiently manage this litigation, and centralization in this district provides us the opportunity to assign the litigation to the Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, an experienced jurist who we are confident will steer this litigation on a prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the District of Minnesota are transferred to the District of Minnesota and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Joan N. Ericksen for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
SCHEDULE A
MDL No. 2564 — IN RE: LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC., TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (TCPA) LITIGATION
Northern District of Illinois
SALAM v. LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC., C.A. No. 1:14-02913
District of Minnesota
PETERSEN, ET AL. v. LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC., C.A. No. 0:14-01242
Eastern District of Missouri
GOULD v. LTF CLUB OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., C.A. No. 4:14-01093
Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle took no part in the decision of this matter.
. The parties have notified the Panel of one additional related action pending in the District of Minnesota. This and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rule 7.1.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.