IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 

GERARD JACKSON, on behalf of 

himself and all others similarly 

situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

INTEL MEDIA HOUSE INC. and 

EHEALTH INSURANCE SERVICES, 

INC., 

 Defendants. 

 No. 4:24-CV-01181 

 (Chief Judge Brann) 

 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

JANUARY 8, 2025 

I. BACKGROUND 

On July 16, 2024, Plaintiff Gerard Jackson filed a two-count class action 

Complaint alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) 

against Intel Media House Inc. (“Intel Media”) and eHealth Insurance Services, Inc. 

(“eHealth”).1

 The Court then received a Notice of Settlement as to Defendant 

eHealth on November 3, 2024.2

 In that Notice of Settlement, Jackson indicated that 

a tentative settlement had been reached and that he would file an Amended 

Complaint.3

 Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint on December 12, 

1

 Doc. 1 (Compl.). 

2

 Doc. 25 (Notice of Settlement). 

3

 Id.

Case 4:24-cv-01181-MWB Document 27 Filed 01/08/25 Page 1 of 3
2 

2024.4 In that Motion, Jackson seeks to add Intel Media’s principal, Christian 

Gamarra, based on Gamarra’s alleged personal participation in the TCPA violations 

purportedly committed by Intel Media. For the reasons that follow, this Motion is 

granted. 

II. STANDARD 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) requires district courts to “freely give 

leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”5

 This is a “liberal standard.”6 Under Rule 

15(a), “[a] district court may deny leave [to amend] upon finding undue delay, bad 

faith, prejudice to the opposing party, or futility.”7

 “‘The function of Rule 15(a) ... 

is to enable a party to assert matters that were overlooked or were unknown at the 

time the party interposed the original complaint.’”8

III. DISCUSSION 

Jackson correctly notes that this is his first Motion to Amend the Complaint 

and that adding Gamarra will not prejudice him. Only the possibility of futility poses 

an issue for amendment. As to Gamarra, the proposed Amended Complaint relies on 

the theory of personal participation liability;9

 in support of this proposition, Jackson 

4

 Doc. 26 (Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint). 

5

 Premier Comp Sols., LLC v. UPMC, 970 F.3d 316, 318 (3d Cir. 2020). 

6

 Id. at 319. 

7

 Rogers v. Wilmington Trust Co., No. 21-1473, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 5653, 2022 WL 621690, 

at *13 (3d Cir. Mar. 3, 2022) (citing Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196, 204 (3d Cir. 2006)). 

8

 Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 82 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, 

Federal Practice and Procedures § 1473 (3d ed. 2019)). 

9

 Doc. 26 (Motion to Amend Compl.) at 2. 

Case 4:24-cv-01181-MWB Document 27 Filed 01/08/25 Page 2 of 3
3 

extensively cites out of Circuit caselaw.10 But he fails to discuss City Select Auto 

Sales Inc. v. David Randall Assocs., a decision where the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Third Circuit appears to question the existence of personal 

participation liability for corporate officers.11 Since our Court of Appeals left open 

this question, it cannot be definitively said that amendment would be futile in this 

instance. As such, I grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff 

Gerard Jackson’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 26) is GRANTED, and 

Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint no later than January 22, 2025. 

 BY THE COURT: 

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

 Matthew W. Brann 

 Chief United States District Judge 

10 Id. 11 885 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2018). 

Case 4:24-cv-01181-MWB Document 27 Filed 01/08/25 Page 3 of 3