Prior to his death in 2015, decedent Paul Godlewski worked as an insurance broker for Allstate Financial Services, LLC. Defendants Megan Gaardsmoe and Kevin Powell supervised Godlewski in his position. Unbeknownst to Allstate, Godlewski ran a Ponzi scheme disguised as a venture capital fund called GEIVC. After the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General began investigating Godlewski, Allstate conducted its own investigation and subsequently terminated Godlewski. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging that Godlewski swindled him out of more than $500,000 by inducing him to make two investments in GEIVC. The complaint named Allstate, Gaardsmoe and Powell as defendants. Here, plaintiff moved to remand the matter back to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. Defendants opposed the motion. They argued that Gaardsmoe and Powell were fraudulent joined in the suit to defeat diversity. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania noted that a defendant may remove a non-diverse case if it can establish that all in-state defendants were sued solely to prevent removal to federal court. However, the party asserting fraudulent joinder must satisfy a heavy burden of persuasion. Fraudulent joinder is reserved for situations where recovery from the non-diverse defendant is a clear legal impossibility, the court said, citing Salley v. AMERCO, 2013 WL 3557014 (E.D. Pa. July 15, 2013). Defendants failed to meet this heavy burden since the court found that at least two of plaintiff's claims had a possibility of success. Plaintiff claimed that both Gaardsmoe and Powell made negligent misrepresentations about Godlewski's employment with, and supervision by, Allstate. These misrepresentations allegedly prevented plaintiff from asking Godlewski for his money back while Godlewski was still alive. Gaardsmoe and Powell knowingly and falsely misrepresented Godlewski's employment status with Allstate to convince plaintiff to purchase Godlewski's Allstate practice, the suit alleged. Defendants Gaardsmoe and Powell correctly noted that initially, they owed no duty to plaintiff. However, under Pennsylvania law, once someone undertakes to make representations, a duty is created and liability can follow from negligent, reckless or intentionally false statements upon which a plaintiff could reasonably rely. These defendants allegedly made false statements after Godlewski's termination so plaintiff would buy Godlewski's insurance practice, thereby insulating them from losses associated with Godlewski's termination. A reasonable court could find that plaintiff sufficiently plead claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Finding no fraudulent joinder, the court granted plaintiff's motion to remand.