Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 26, 2025

DKSJ, LLC v. Cohen

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:25-cv-01080
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
ContractCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In DKSJ, LLC v. Cohen, Judge Abrams dismissed the breach-of-contract case because the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Who this affects

DKSJ, LLC and Joseph S. Cohen were affected: the court dismissed DKSJ’s breach-of-contract action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, terminated the pending motions, and closed the case.

What happened

DKSJ, LLC sued Joseph S. Cohen for breach of contract after a New York state court dismissed an earlier case without prejudice and directed DKSJ to address federal jurisdiction in this court. The contract reportedly designated this court as the exclusive forum for disputes.

The court ruled that the case could not proceed because the contract claim did not arise under federal law, and the parties were not completely diverse: DKSJ and Cohen were both citizens of New York for this analysis. The court also explained that the parties’ forum-selection clause could not create federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Judge Ronnie Abrams dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions, and closed the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
DKSJ, LLC v. Cohen · No. 1:25-cv-01080
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Feb. 26, 2025

Background

DKSJ, LLC brought this action against Joseph S. Cohen, asserting a breach-of-contract claim. DKSJ alleged that the parties’ contract contained a forum-selection clause designating the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as the exclusive forum for disputes arising from or based on the agreement.

DKSJ had previously brought its claims in New York Supreme Court because it believed the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The state court dismissed that case without prejudice and stated that this court should decide its own jurisdiction before DKSJ brought the case there. DKSJ therefore filed this action seeking, in substance, a ruling on federal jurisdiction. Cohen told the court that he had no knowledge of facts contrary to DKSJ’s assertion that federal jurisdiction was lacking and did not object to dismissal.

Jurisdiction

The court held that it had no subject-matter jurisdiction. It lacked federal-question jurisdiction because DKSJ’s breach-of-contract claim did not arise under federal law.

The court also held that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable. DKSJ is a limited liability company whose citizenship is determined by the citizenship of its members. DKSJ’s sole member was a trust, whose citizenship is determined by the citizenship of its trustees. Because the complaint alleged that two of the trust’s three trustees were New York citizens, the court treated DKSJ as a New York citizen for this analysis. Cohen was also alleged to be a New York citizen, so complete diversity was absent.

The court further explained that the parties’ consent and the forum-selection clause could not establish subject-matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be created by agreement between the parties.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions and close the case. The opinion did not decide the underlying breach-of-contract claim.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.