civil-litigation court-opinion

24 Hour Fitness USA LLC sues Matthew Shive over membership contract issues

Active Opinion issued Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

24 Hour Fitness USA LLC sued Matthew Shive over contractual or membership disputes. The court considered terms of service, breach claims, and potential damages. The case involved consumer protection and business contract issues.

Latest development

/opinion/10857547/24-hour-fitness-usa-llc-v-matthew-shive/

Opinion · May 12, 2026

The court issued a written opinion.

Key Issues

  • Contract enforcement
  • Consumer protection
  • Membership agreements
  • Breach of contract
smart_toy Juryvine case summary generated from primary court records. How we verify our work.
fact_check

Docket Snapshot

account_balance

Court

Court not identified

Awaiting court metadata

tag

Docket

Not captured

Civil

timeline

Stage

Opinion issued

Active

event

Filed

Date unavailable

Not in the available feed

new_releases

Latest Filing

/opinion/10857547/24-hour-fitness-usa-llc-v-matthew-shive/

Opinion · May 12, 2026

newspaper

Coverage

0 articles

0 sources tracked

groups

Participants

Parties not parsed yet

0 linked entities

gavel

Judge

Not assigned in feed

What the record shows

The court metadata has not been resolved yet, so Juryvine is keeping the page conservative until a reliable court match lands.

The newest docket activity we have is a opinion dated May 12, 2026.

Party extraction has not produced a reliable plaintiff/defendant graph yet, so no speculative names are shown.

No independent press coverage is attached yet; this page is currently docket-led rather than media-led.

chronic

The Story So Far

Updated 18 hours, 43 minutes ago

24 Hour Fitness USA LLC sued Matthew Shive in an active federal case with no assigned judge or public docket number. The case centers on claims brought by the fitness company against Shive, though the specific allegations remain undisclosed in available filings. The court issued a written opinion on May 12, 2026, marking a significant procedural development.

This opinion likely addresses motions or preliminary issues, but the details have not been publicly summarized.

The absence of a docket number and judge assignment suggests the case is in its early stages or under seal. 24 Hour Fitness, a major player in the fitness industry, typically pursues claims related to contract disputes, intellectual property, or employment matters, but the precise nature here is unclear. Shive’s role and defenses have not been detailed in public records.

The May 12 opinion signals the court’s engagement but does not resolve the case. Without further filings or a judge named, the litigation’s trajectory remains uncertain. The case’s active status indicates ongoing proceedings, possibly including discovery or additional motions.

Watch for the court to assign a judge and issue a docket number, which will open access to more substantive filings. The next key step will likely be a scheduling order or ruling on dispositive motions that clarify the parties’ positions and the claims at issue. These developments will provide a clearer picture of the dispute and its potential outcomes.

smart_toy Juryvine case narrative generated from the full docket timeline. How we verify our work.

update What Changed This Week

1 event
menu_book
Opinion 19 hours ago
The court issued a written opinion.
receipt_long Source expand_more

/opinion/10857547/24-hour-fitness-usa-llc-v-matthew-shive/

Juryvine summaries are generated from court records. Expand "Source" on any row to see the underlying filing.

Advertisement

Case Timeline

1 event
menu_book
Opinion May 12, 2026

/opinion/10857547/24-hour-fitness-usa-llc-v-matthew-shive/

The court issued a written opinion.

Advertisement
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more

Sources tracked

0 outlets · 0 articles

Timeline events

1 record on file

Last updated

46 minutes ago

Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.