TMNT Corp. ("TC"), housed in Rhode Island, did some contract work for a Massachusetts partnership named Shredder and Associates ("SA"). After a contract dispute that went to protracted litigation, TC obtained a judgment in a federal district court in Rhode Island for $1 million in contract damages against SA and its general partners. The signed judgment did not state whether SA and the general partners were jointly and severally liable; it was silent on that matter. TC registered the judgment in a federal district court in Massachusetts, had the court clerk add the words "jointly and severally liable" to it, and served it on SA and the general partners, one of whom is Krang. This process is known as a "reach and apply" action. Krang's assets include interest in several trusts, which TC wants to reach to satisfy its contract judgment.

Krang objected. The Massachusetts federal court held that because the judgment was based on a contract claim, not a tort claim, and because the originally signed judgment did not specify joint and several liability, Krang was only jointly liable, not jointly and severally liable. Thus, Krang was only liable for his proportionate share of the damages amongst the other general partners, not the whole amount. TC appeals the decision.

Is the Massachusetts federal district court correct?  Explain