Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Bankruptcy newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (June 19, 2020, 12:54 PM EDT ) A chain of Massachusetts gyms is suing Gov. Charlie Baker in federal court for delaying their reopening until the third phase of the state's plan, saying the "unconstitutional" closure orders could force them into bankruptcy.
The group of Best Fitness locations in Chelmsford, Lowell, Springfield and Danvers told a federal court in Boston on Thursday that the state-ordered closures have "drained" their property of all value since they cannot take in membership fees during the shutdown but still need to make rent payments to their landlords.
As a result, the gyms say the continued shutdown "will require them to either close their facilities permanently or seek protection under federal bankruptcy law."
Baker was also hit with a second lawsuit Thursday, as Massachusetts resident Vincent Delaney attacked the governor's legal justification for invoking the robust Civil Defense Act, while also claiming face mask mandates and church attendance limitations violate his constitutional rights.
"Every person has the right to breath unabated and unencumbered by masks," said Delaney, who appears to have crowdfunded about $19,000 to pay for the suit.
Legal challenges to Baker's shutdown orders have had mixed results so far. A case attempting to overturn his closure of recreational pot shops was scuttled when a state judge found the governor had a sufficient rational basis for deeming them nonessential.
But a suit brought by gun shops and a group of residents challenging Baker's decision to keep firearm retailers closed resulted in a court ruling allowing them to reopen early. In that case, a federal judge found the open-ended closure violated the Second Amendment.
In the latest suit, the gyms say their decision to lay off their 310 staff and personal trainers wasn't enough to keep the business afloat while they and their competitors wait out the pandemic. The five Best Fitness locations say they are behind $145,000 in rent payments.
The lawsuit claims the closures amount to an unconstitutional "taking" or seizure "of private property, for public purpose, without providing just compensation."
Delaney's lawsuit, meanwhile, argues Baker's decision to invoke the Civil Defense Act — passed in the run-up to the Cold War — is faulty since a public health crisis like a pandemic isn't included in the statute's justifications.
"The COVID-19 public health matter is not even remotely an event, standing alone, that was contemplated by the legislature when the act was enacted in the backdrop of the former USSR's atomic bomb detonation in 1949 and at the commencement of the Korean conflict," Delaney said.
The lawsuit and accompanying request for an injunction say Baker's face mask requirements and occupancy limits for churches are stricter than the limitations on private businesses and "discriminate between corporal needs that he deems 'essential' and spiritual needs, which he alone deems unessential."
Baker's office declined to comment on the lawsuits.
The gyms are represented by Richard P. McClure.
Delaney is represented by Thomas O. Mason.
Counsel information for Baker was not immediately available Friday.
The cases are World Gym Inc. et al. v. Baker, case number 1:20-cv-11162, and Delaney v. Baker, case number 1:20-cv-11154, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
--Editing by Marygrace Murphy.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
