10, 2012, Loreto filed a motion for leave to file late an amended complaint. See Pl.’s Mot. Out of Time to File Am. Compl. and Note Opp'n to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss. 3 . Loreto's proposed amended complaint would eliminate all counts except for one count of breach of fiduciary duty, and a request for attorney fees that is mislabeled as a "count.” 4 . Loreto does not allege that either defendant maintains a principal place of business in the District of Columbia. 5 . Plaintiff’s mere speculation that defendants travel through D.C., see Am. Compl. ¶ 20 (stating that the defendants "probably come and go through the District of Columbia on a regular basis”), cannot be enough to make them answer to a lawsuit here. See The Urban Inst. v. PINCON Servs., 681 F.Supp.2d 41, 47-48 (D.D.C.2010)
holding insufficient the plaintiffs generic allegations holding that unsupported allegations or denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of summary judgment holding that unsupported allegations by the secretary that time expended was excessive are insufficient to justify a reduction holding that similar allegations were insufficient to state a due process claim holding that the plaintiffs unsupported allegations about the defendants travels to the district were insufficient to create personal jurisdiction