Alright, it looks like Katz is taking some pages off of Barton Scammers play book.,. It looks like your adding executives to these lawsuits just hit a major procedural wall with the Sam Katz case.

The Big Picture: Adding a Defendant Gets Denied

In the case Katz v. Liberty Power Corp., the court just blocked an attempt to drag the former CEO, David Hernandez, into the lawsuit. The plaintiffs (Samuel Katz and Lynne Rhodes) wanted to file a third amended complaint to add him, but the court said no. Their motion was denied, which is a clear win for the defense.

The Core Problem: Proving “Personal Jurisdiction”

The law says a court can only have power over someone (that’s “personal jurisdiction”) if that person has a real, direct connection to the state. The court looked at the Massachusetts law for this (the “Long-Arm Statute”) and found the plaintiffs’ arguments just didn’t measure up.

Strike 1 (Transacting Business): The court wasn’t buying that being the former CEO, by itself, meant Hernandez “transacted business” in Massachusetts. They ruled his corporate role wasn’t enough.

Strikes 2 & 3 (Causing Injury): The plaintiffs argued the TCPA violations caused harm in the state. However, the court found “no dispute” that Hernandez did not regularly do business, solicit business, or engage in a persistent course of conduct in Massachusetts. This killed the argument that he could be reached for actions outside the state that caused injury inside it.

Because the plaintiffs failed to show a valid basis for the court to have power over Hernandez, trying to add him would be “futile.” That’s a key legal term—it means the amendment would fail to state a valid claim from the start, so the judge denied it.

Strategy Check: What This Means for Your Approach

From your previous comments, you’ve been seeing success with getting past motions to dismiss by alleging a pattern of robotic calls. This case, though, highlights a different and tougher challenge.

Trying to sue an individual executive for a company’s alleged actions is an uphill battle. You need to show direct, personal involvement by that executive in the specific wrongful acts within the specific state. A job title isn’t enough. This ruling shows courts will protect individuals from being hauled into court in states where they don’t have clear, regular, and direct business activities.

If you’re strategizing on holding individuals accountable, this case suggests you’d need to gather very specific facts showing exactly what that person did in that state, rather than relying on their position in the company.

Read more here at:

https://tcpaworld.com/2023/10/05/strikeout-on-jurisdiction-plaintiff-sam-katz-loses-on-motion-for-leave-to-file-third-amended-complaint/