Dolce v. Pezzola
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-10049
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Dolce v. Pezzola, Judge Schofield ordered jurisdictional evidence and a status process because Icarus LLC’s citizenship may defeat diversity jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Dolce v. Pezzola, particularly Icarus Investment Group, LLC, because the case’s continuation in federal court depends on whether the parties are completely diverse in citizenship.
What happened
Dolce v. Pezzola involves claims by Seth Dolce and other plaintiffs against David Pezzola, Icarus Investment Group, LLC, and American Street Capital, LLC. The plaintiffs allege breach of contract and related claims, and rely on diversity of citizenship for federal jurisdiction.
The parties agree that the plaintiffs and all defendants except Icarus LLC have different citizenships. They dispute Icarus LLC’s citizenship because a limited liability company has the citizenship of each member. Defendants contend that Icarus’s ownership structure includes Kinetix Asset Management LLC, whose sole member is Jessica (Koonz) Dulgerian, whom they say has been a New York citizen since 2015.
The court did not decide the contract claims. It found that the plaintiffs had not yet shown that federal jurisdiction exists and ordered Defendants to file supporting declarations, required the parties to meet and confer, and directed them to submit a joint status letter. Judge Schofield also directed the clerk to close the motions listed at Docket Nos. 30 and 60.
The detailed version
- Dolce v. Pezzola · No. 1:23-cv-10049
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 6, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint against David Pezzola, Icarus Investment Group, LLC (Icarus LLC), and American Street Capital, LLC. The complaint asserts breach of contract and related claims. It alleges federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The opinion states that the plaintiffs are citizens of New York and that the defendants other than Icarus LLC are not. The parties dispute Icarus LLC’s citizenship. For a limited liability company, citizenship is determined by the citizenship of each member. A party invoking federal subject-matter jurisdiction must prove that jurisdiction exists by a preponderance of the evidence.
The complaint alleges that Icarus LLC is a Wisconsin limited liability company with its principal place of business in Illinois and that none of its members are New York citizens. It identifies eight members, including Kinetix Asset Management LLC, and alleges that Kinetix is an Illinois limited liability company whose sole member is Jessica Koonz, an Illinois citizen domiciled in Chicago.
Defendants state that Icarus LLC’s sole member is Pantheon Group Holdings, LLC, whose members include Kinetix. They further state that Kinetix’s sole member is Jessica (Koonz) Dulgerian, who has been a New York citizen since 2015. According to the opinion, Ms. Dulgerian confirmed her New York citizenship by signing a declaration. If she was a New York citizen on November 14, 2023, the date identified in the opinion as when the complaint was filed, the parties would not be completely diverse and the court would lack subject-matter jurisdiction.
Court’s Analysis
When reviewing subject-matter jurisdiction, the court generally assumes the complaint’s factual allegations are true unless more specific allegations or documentary evidence contradict them. The court found that Defendants’ specific allegations and evidence contradicted the complaint’s allegations about the citizenship of Icarus LLC’s members. At that point, the plaintiffs had not met their burden of showing that subject-matter jurisdiction exists.
Order and Effect
The court ordered Defendants to file, by March 12, 2025, a copy of Ms. Dulgerian’s declaration, together with declarations from the person who obtained it and each person who transmitted it, to authenticate its chain of custody. By March 19, 2025, the parties had to meet and confer about whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists and, if necessary, obtain additional information. By March 26, 2025, they had to file a joint status letter proposing next steps.
The order did not decide the breach-of-contract or related claims and did not state that the case was dismissed. It directed the clerk to close the motions at Docket Nos. 30 and 60.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.