Fitness International, LLC v. Alspaugh

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 20, 2025
• Docket: 23-2682
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 20 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, No. 23-2682 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 8:22-cv-01800-DOC-DFM v. MEMORANDUM* LEAH ALSPAUGH,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

DOES, 1 to 50, inclusive,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 20, 2025 **

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Defendant Leah Alspaugh appeals a jury verdict and permanent injunction

entered in favor of Fitness International, LLC in its trademark infringement action.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the jury verdict for

substantial evidence and denial of judgment as a matter of law de novo, Wallace v.

City of San Diego, 479 F.3d 616, 624 (9th Cir. 2007), and affirm.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 48 allowed the district court to conduct the

jury trial with six jurors and two alternate jurors. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 48(a) (“A

jury must begin with at least 6 and no more than 12 members. . .”).

Contrary to Alspaugh’s assertions, the Special Verdict Form was filed and

served on her before trial and conformed to the complaint, which alleged fraud and

requested damages.

The jury’s finding that Fitness owns the trademarks for LA Fitness, L.A.

Fitness and Pro Results is well-supported by the trial record. Fitness presented

certified copies of its trademarks issued by the United States Patent and Trademark

Office and evidence that it had been operating under the trademarks for many

years. To the extent that Alspaugh argues that the district court erred in denying

her motion to vacate judgment, the district court properly denied the motion.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Fitness, the jury verdict in

favor of Fitness was well-supported by the record. See Wallace, 479 F.3d at 624

(setting forth the standard for a motion for judgment as a matter of law).

2 23-2682 Contrary to Alspaugh’s assertion, the district court had the power and

discretion to enter the permanent injunction. La Quinta Worldwide LLC v.

Q.R.T.M., S.A. de C.V., 762 F.3d 867, 879 (9th Cir. 2014); 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a).

We decline to consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and

argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir.

2009) (per curiam).

All pending motions are DENIED as moot.

AFFIRMED.

3 23-2682