Arizona Gyms Lose Bid to Defy Governor’s Re-Closing Order
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.09.20
On Tuesday, an Arizona state court denied a temporary restraining order sought by two Phoenix-area gyms to enjoin enforcement of Governor Ducey’s “re-closing” order. The lawsuit, brought by plaintiffs Mountainside Fitness and EOS Fitness who together operate 40 gyms, claimed violations of constitutional due process and equal protection rights.
This decision was part of a constellation of similar lawsuits in state and federal courts across the country. On Monday, several movie theater chains sued New Jersey Governor Philip Murphy for the right to reopen. In late June, Long Island gym owners announced their intention to sue the state of New York for the right to open their doors during New York’s “Phase 4” reopening plan. And various North Carolina entities have sued Governor Roy Cooper to reopen—to mixed results. North Carolina churches and, as of yesterday, bowling alleys won their bids to reopen, but bars and gyms have not been successful.
The Executive Orders
On April 29, Governor Ducey issued an executive order that allowed fitness centers and other businesses to reopen if they enacted strict physical-distancing and sanitation protocols. In the weeks after re-opening, however, Arizona’s coronavirus cases skyrocketed. National newspapers observed that Arizona had “lost control of the epidemic” and that “the state is a coronavirus hot spot.”
On June 29, Ducey issued Executive Order 2020-43, which “paused” Arizona’s reopening and ordered all gyms, bars, and movie theaters closed until July 27. Mountainside sued the next day, and its CEO publicly stated that it would remain open until the court issued a ruling. Law enforcement cited the manager of one of Mountainside’s facilities with misdemeanor charges for flouting the order. In its Tuesday decision, the court summarized the evolving situation in this way:
There is certainly understandable frustration when the advice and directives the public gets from the government are constantly changing and inconsistent. . . . In May, Arizona officials told the public that it was safe to re-open, albeit in a measured way. The public is now being told, in essence, that what was said in May was incorrect.
The Ruling
Mountainside and EOS argued that they met established federal health standards through strict physical distancing policies, investment in sanitation equipment, extensive staff training, mandatory temperature checks, and mask requirements. Closing their facilities without consideration of those safety protocols, the gyms claimed, was arbitrary and irrational.
The court disagreed, holding that the Executive Order “clearly had a rational basis” to prevent the surge in coronavirus cases. The court continued that the “burden that Mountainside has is immense,” because the “Governor does not have to prove that his decision was correct” and the court “must give extreme deference” to the Order.
Moreover, the gyms pointed to other higher-risk businesses, like casinos, which the Order allowed to stay open. While acknowledging the merit of this argument—that “many businesses were allowed to stay open that may very well not have been ‘essential,’”—it ultimately held that “courts are in no position to second guess these types of decisions.” While denying plaintiffs’ requested relief, the court expressed empathy for their claims, stating that:
Certain people and businesses are being hurt disproportionally during this crisis, some in incredibly unfair ways. Mountainside may be one of those businesses. The Court certainly sympathizes with Mountainside, and its employees and patrons. Sympathy, however, is not a relevant consideration for the Court.
Shortly after the court issued its ruling, Mountainside agreed to abide by the court’s order and close its facilities.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.25
On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending. Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss. And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit. Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage. Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending. While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.06.25
FinCEN Delays Implementation Date and Reopens AML/CFT Rule for Investment Advisers
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.06.25
Series of Major Data Breaches Targeting the Insurance Industry
Client Alert | 11 min read | 08.06.25
