Humor in appellate opinions is definitely a hit-or-miss proposition. Sometimes the jokes land, particularly if they're a bit subtle. Other times, they fall flat.
I thought that Judge Mendoza's introduction to today's opinion fell into the former category. I liked it, and it brought a sly smile to my face:
"Like many wishful thinkers, Katherine Chabolla started off 2020 by resolving to improve her fitness and wellness. So that January, she went online and purchased a trial subscription with ClassPass, a company offering packaged deal access to gyms, fitness studio. Putting many of us to shame, her New Year’s resolution lasted through February. But March brought with it a global pandemic, and California’s gyms and studios closed their doors. ClassPass did not charge Chabolla’s account for months, but when operations resumed so did ClassPass’s charges. Chabolla sued, alleging the resumed charges violated California law. ClassPass argues that when Chabolla used its website, she agreed to arbitrate any claims against it.
We are presented with a question of ever-increasing ubiquity in today’s e-commerce world: whether an internet user’s online activities bound her to certain terms and conditions. We do not know if Chabolla’s New Year’s resolution survived 2020. But as to her claim in federal court, we hold that it survives ClassPass’s motion to compel arbitration and affirm."
Well done.
Now, not everything in the opinion definitely hit. Later in the opinion, for example, I somewhat thought this particular reference was a bit forced:
"As Ross Geller and Chandler Bing once learned the hard way, there are few contracts more difficult to escape than those for gym memberships."
Still, I appreciate the effort.
