A federal court in Illinois recently denied both a motion to join a non-diverse defendant and a motion to remand in a personal injury vicarious liability case filed against a franchisor and franchisee because there was no reasonable probability of success against the proposed non-diverse defendant. Larmon v. Planet Fitness Franchising, LLC, et. al, 2025 WL 2721088 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 24, 2025).
Peter Larmon, in his capacity as the administrator of the estate of the deceased plaintiff, brought tort claims against Planet Fitness Franchising, LLC and Epic Fitness Group, LLC. Planet Fitness and Epic Fitness removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. Larmon then filed a proposed amended complaint that would add a non-diverse defendant—an employee of the Planet Fitness® location. The proposed amended complaint included a survival action and a wrongful death claim based on the employee’s alleged negligence and willful and wanton conduct. Larmon moved to join the employee as a non-diverse defendant and to remand the case for lack of diversity.
The court rejected Larmon’s motions for joinder and remand and the proposed amended complaint because Larmon’s efforts to join the non-diverse defendant constituted “fraudulent joinder” and a veiled attempt to defeat the court’s diversity jurisdiction. The court applied Illinois substantive law and concluded Larmon lacked a reasonable possibility of success against the proposed defendant. The court noted the proposed amended complaint failed to adequately connect the proposed defendant to the alleged tortious conduct at issue. For example, the proposed amended complaint did not allege any details about the employee’s role, his presence at the scene, or his duty to the deceased plaintiff. Accordingly, the court used its discretion under federal law to deny joinder of the non-diverse defendant and maintain the court’s diversity jurisdiction over the dispute.
*Pierce Rose is a Law Clerk for Lathrop GPM who contributed to the writing of this post
[View source.]
