Dolce v. Pezzola
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-10049
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Dolce v. Pezzola, Judge Schofield dismissed claims against eight defendants and ordered service on three others in a contract case.
Seth Dolce’s claims against Charles Kremer, Leo Kremer, Oliver Kremer, Frank Racioppi, Atlas Asset Management, Perseus Holdings II LLC, Perseus Holdings IV, and Cameleo, LLC were dismissed. The claims against David Pezzola, Icarus Investment Group, and American Street Capital, LLC remained subject to service through the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Dolce v. Pezzola, Seth Dolce, representing himself, brought a state-law contract claim under the court’s diversity jurisdiction. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
The court dismissed the claims against Charles Kremer, Leo Kremer, Oliver Kremer, Frank Racioppi, Atlas Asset Management, Perseus Holdings II LLC, Perseus Holdings IV, and Cameleo, LLC, because the amended complaint did not state facts showing their involvement. The case continues against David Pezzola, Icarus Investment Group, and American Street Capital, LLC, for whom the court ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to issue and serve summonses.
Judge Schofield also extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses are issued and denied permission to proceed without fees on any appeal from this order. The order does not state whether the dismissals were with or without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Dolce v. Pezzola · No. 1:23-cv-10049
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 21, 2024
Background
Seth Dolce, who is representing himself, brought a state-law breach-of-contract claim under the court’s diversity jurisdiction. Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain had previously allowed Dolce to proceed without paying court fees upfront.
Screening of the claims
Because Dolce was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to review the amended complaint and dismiss any portion that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss the case if it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. In reviewing a self-represented person’s filing, the court said it would read the pleading liberally and consider the strongest arguments suggested by it.
The court found that the amended complaint stated no facts about the involvement of Charles Kremer, Leo Kremer, Oliver Kremer, Frank Racioppi, Atlas Asset Management, Perseus Holdings II LLC, Perseus Holdings IV, or Cameleo, LLC. The court said it was unclear why Dolce had named these individuals and entities as defendants. It therefore dismissed Dolce’s claims against all eight for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Service on remaining defendants
The court did not dismiss the claims against David Pezzola, Icarus Investment Group, or American Street Capital, LLC in this order. Because Dolce was allowed to proceed without paying fees, he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve those defendants. The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, complete the required service forms with the defendants’ addresses, and provide the necessary documents to the Marshals Service.
The court stated that the amended complaint must be served within 90 days after the summonses are issued. It also stated that Dolce should request an extension if service is not completed within that period. The order warned that Dolce must notify the court if his address changes and that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.
Conclusion and appeal status
Judge Schofield dismissed the claims against the eight defendants listed above and instructed the Clerk to issue summonses for Pezzola, Icarus Investment Group, and American Street Capital, LLC. The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state whether the dismissals were with or without prejudice.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.