SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARY
Washington DC Case Summary
K.L. Blackwell v. Planet Fitness Franchising, LLC et al.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Case No. 24-CV-1034
Decided: May 21, 2026
The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s granting of Defendants’ motion to dismiss because Plaintiff sued improper parties, signed a waiver that bars certain claims, and the causes of action fail as a matter of law.
Background
Plaintiff is a pro se attorney who frequented a Planet Fitness facility. Although he was not a member of the facility, he alleged that each time he visited, he was a guest that was accompanied by a Planet Fitness “Black Card” member. Plaintiff alleged that he encountered hostile treatment by a Planet Fitness employee. He filed a complaint containing several tort claims and a breach of contract claim against the gym and several supposedly related entities.
Plaintiff’s eventual amended complaint contained five counts: (1) assault, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”), (4) negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention; and (5) breach of contract. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted. Plaintiff appealed.
Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order in its entirety.
The Court of Appeals stated that a successful claim for the tort of assault must demonstrate that (1) the defendants acted “intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact” with him or intending to cause “an imminent apprehension of such a contact,” and that (2) he was “thereby put in such imminent apprehension.” The Court did not find the factual allegations by Plaintiff rose to the level of an act that would put a person in fear of “imminent contact, as distinguished from any contact in the future.” That is because an unnamed employee’s statements that “you don’t know who I am” and “can I help you?,” even accepted as true, were not sufficient to put the plaintiff in fear of imminent contact.
The Court of Appeals also noted that Plaintiff’s allegations did not meet the “high bar” set for “extreme and outrageous” conduct required in an IIED claim. Plaintiff was unable to establish an extreme and outrageous conduct that would “intentionally or recklessly cause the plaintiff severe emotional distress.”
As for Plaintiff’s NIED claim, the Court found that Plaintiff’s theory rested on a “special relationship,” but Plaintiff failed to show that such a relationship was created. The Court further stated that despite Planet Fitness’s marketing scheme of promoting “[improvement] of the health and wellness of its members and the community at large,” it does not transform the basic duty of care to its members into an “expansive responsibility to protect them from emotional harm.”
The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court, finding that Plaintiff’s claim for negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention could not stand as he failed to state a successful claim for assault, IIED, and/or NIED. Additionally, because Plaintiff failed to otherwise explain how the actions of defendants’ employees constituted dangerous or incompetent conduct, his claim for negligent supervision also failed.
Finally, the Court of Appeals found that Plaintiff was not an intended beneficiary of the contract that the unnamed “Black Card” member signed with Planet Fitness, and therefore he failed to state a claim for breach of contract.
Questions about this case can be directed to Joanne Lee at (202-945-9504) or jlee@tthlaw.com.