Appellant says individual wage‑liability judgment should be vacated, citing venue and missing jury predicate

May it please the court: Adjir Reddy, appearing pro se by video, asked the three‑justice panel to vacate the judgment that held him personally liable for unpaid wages stemming from his company, Cogenesis LLC. Reddy told the court he was not the functional manager of payroll and emphasized two primary grounds for relief: that Massachusetts did not have the "most significant relationship" to the employment for purposes of the wage statute under Taylor and G. L. c. 149 §1, and that the jury was never asked the §148 statutory predicate (whether Reddy "had the management of wage payment"), rendering the personal‑liability finding structurally defective.

Why it matters: If the panel agrees the verdict form omitted an essential statutory element or that Massachusetts law does not apply, the judgment against Reddy personally could be vacated or remanded for a special‑verdict finding. Reddy focused on payroll records and corporate filings that listed principal places of business outside Massachusetts (South Portland, Maine; Marietta, Georgia) and on testimony saying payroll and finance were handled by others.

What was said: Reddy argued that even if the record contains evidence supportive of either inference, the jury never answered the specific §148 question and the charge effectively made personal liability automatic if the company was liable. "The jury was never asked to find...a required statutory element," he told the court. Appellee counsel Dana Curran responded that the jurisdictional and choice‑of‑law arguments were not preserved and pointed to contractual language and filings identifying Cogenesis as a Massachusetts LLC; Curran said many of Reddy’s objections were raised too late and that settlement‑discussion evidence was properly excluded.

Exchanges and judicial focus: The panel questioned whether preservation rules bar review of some objections and pressed counsel on the record where the judge excluded or sustained evidence. The justices asked for two documents (a damages chart and an October 2016 email) to be submitted as supplemental appendix materials to aid any opinion.

Outcome and next steps: The court took the case under advisement after oral argument. The panel asked the parties to submit the two identified exhibits if available; no decision was announced from the bench.