In a significant win demonstrating the importance of procedural rigor, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has denied a plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint in the long-running case of Katz v. Liberty Power Corp., LLC.

The plaintiff, Samuel Katz—a recognized serial litigator in TCPA matters—sought to add David Hernandez, the former CEO of the defendant companies, to the lawsuit. The court’s denial, issued on September 22, 2023, underscores a critical principle: plaintiffs cannot indiscriminately name corporate executives as defendants without establishing a solid legal foundation for personal jurisdiction.

Core Issue: The Futility of Amending Without Jurisdiction

The ruling hinged on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). While the rule allows for amendment with the court’s leave, such permission is rightly denied when the amendment would be “futile.” The court found that adding Mr. Hernandez would be precisely that because the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of establishing a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction over him in Massachusetts.

The court meticulously applied the Massachusetts long-arm statute, analyzing three potential grounds:

1. Transacting Business (Subsection (a)): The plaintiffs alleged jurisdiction simply because Hernandez was the former CEO. The court correctly rejected this, citing precedent that “something ‘more than mere participation in the corporation’s affairs is required'” to establish personal jurisdiction over an individual officer.
2. Causing Tortious Injury In-State (Subsection (c)): The claim that TCPA violations caused injury in Massachusetts was insufficient on its own to establish jurisdiction over Hernandez personally.
3. Causing Injury from Out-of-State Acts (Subsection (d)): This provision, often used to reach non-residents, requires a showing that the defendant “regularly does or solicits business” in the state. The court found “no dispute” that Hernandez did not meet this standard, dealing the decisive blow to the plaintiffs’ motion.

Key Takeaways for the Defense Bar

This ruling is a textbook example of successful defense strategy at the pleading stage and offers crucial reminders:

• The Corporate Shield Holds: The decision reinforces that corporate structure matters. Plaintiffs must provide specific, factual allegations linking an individual executive’s personal actions to the forum state. Title alone (e.g., “CEO”) is categorically insufficient.
• Procedural Diligence Pays Off: Vigorously opposing frivolous amendments is essential. By forcing the plaintiff to meet their jurisdictional burden early, the defense prevented unnecessary and costly litigation against an individual who lacked the requisite contacts with Massachusetts.
• A Blueprint for Opposition: The opinion provides a clear framework for opposing similar motions. Defense counsel should focus on the specific requirements of the relevant state’s long-arm statute and demand factual precision from plaintiffs, not conclusory legal statements.

Conclusion: A Welcome Affirmation of Legal Standards

This “strikeout” is a win for principled litigation. It affirms that courts will not permit plaintiffs to engage in speculative, dragnet litigation tactics aimed at increasing settlement pressure by adding individual defendants. The ruling demands that plaintiffs demonstrate a legitimate, fact-based jurisdictional nexus before expanding the scope of a lawsuit—a standard that protects both individuals and the judicial process from abuse.

For defendants facing similar tactics from serial litigators, this case serves as a powerful citation and a reminder that a well-argued motion based on jurisdictional grounds can effectively halt an overreach before it begins.