Haymount Urgent Care P.C. and Robert A. Clinton, Jr. v. Westwood Funding Solutions, LLC, Dominick Curatola, and John and Jane Doe Investors

S.D. New York

Haymount Urgent Care P.C. and Robert A. Clinton, Jr. v. Westwood Funding Solutions, LLC, Dominick Curatola, and John and Jane Doe Investors

DecidedOctober 29, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-08819

StatusUnknown

This text of Haymount Urgent Care P.C. and Robert A. Clinton, Jr. v. Westwood Funding Solutions, LLC, Dominick Curatola, and John and Jane Doe Investors (Haymount Urgent Care P.C. and Robert A. Clinton, Jr. v. Westwood Funding Solutions, LLC, Dominick Curatola, and John and Jane Doe Investors) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Haymount Urgent Care P.C. and Robert A. Clinton, Jr. v. Westwood Funding Solutions, LLC, Dominick Curatola, and John and Jane Doe Investors, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------x HAYMOUNT URGENT CARE P.C. and ROBERT A. CLINTON, JR., Plaintiffs,

25-cv-8819 (PKC)

-against- ORDER

WESTWOOD FUNDING SOLUTIONS, LLC, DOMINICK CURATOLA, and JOHN and JANE DOE INVESTORS,

Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------x

CASTEL, U.S.D.J. The limited subject matter jurisdiction of a district court is best addressed at the outset of a case. It falls upon the Court to raise issues of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. The Complaint asserts subject matter jurisdiction based on federal question jurisdiction and diversity of citizenship. (Compl’t ¶¶ 14-15.) “It is firmly established that diversity of citizenship should be distinctly and positively averred in the pleadings, or should appear with equal distinctness in other parts of the record.” Leveraged Leasing Admin. Corp. v. PacifiCorp Cap., Inc., 87 F.3d 44, 47 (2d Cir. 1996). “It is axiomatic that diversity jurisdiction is available only when all adverse parties to a litigation are completely diverse in their citizenships.” Washington Nat’l Ins. Co. v. OBEX Grp. LLC, 958 F.3d 126, 133 (2d Cir. 2020) (quotation marks omitted). Where a complaint premised upon diversity of citizenship names a limited liability company as a party, it must allege the citizenship of natural persons who are members of the limited liability company as well as the place of incorporation and principal place of business of any corporate entities that are members of the limited liability company. See Platinum- Montaur Life Sciences, LLC v. Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 943 F.3d 613, 615 (2d Cir. 2019).

The Complaint asserts that defendant Westwood Funding Solutions, LLC is a limited liability company organized under New York law with a principal place of business in Brooklyn, New York. (Compl’t ¶ 9.) It does not identify the citizenship of any members of the limited liability company. The Complaint also asserts that defendant Dominick Curatola “resides” in New York. (Compl’t ¶ 10.) For the purposes of alleging diversity jurisdiction, “residence alone is insufficient to establish domicile for jurisdictional purposes.” Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Companies, Inc., 935 F.3d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 2019). “‘An individual’s citizenship, within the meaning of the diversity statute, is determined by his domicile . . . [in other words] the place where a person has

his true fixed home and principal establishment, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning.’” Id. at 53 (brackets and ellipsis in original; quoting Palazzo ex rel. Delmage v. Corio, 232 F.3d 38, 42 (2d Cir. 2000)); see also Avant Cap. Partners, LLC v. W108 Dev. LLC, 387 F. Supp. 3d 320, 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“Residences matter only if they assist in establishing domicile and citizenship.”) (Stanton, J.). Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, plaintiffs may serve interrogatories as to the citizenship of Dominick Curatola, and, as to Westwood Funding Solutions, LLC, the citizenship of all natural persons who are its members, and if any corporation is a member, the jurisdiction under whose laws it is incorporated and the principal place of business. The defendants shall serve their responses to the interrogatories within fourteen (14) days. Within forty-five (45) days of this Order, the plaintiffs shall amend their complaint to correct the jurisdictional deficiencies by truthfully and accurately alleging the citizenship of each defendant. If, by this date, plaintiffs fail to allege complete diversity of citizenship, the action will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without further notice to any party. SO ORDERED. LZ Fees LZ Pl United States District Judge Dated: New York, New York October 29, 2025

-3-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------x HAYMOUNT URGENT CARE P.C. and ROBERT A. CLINTON, JR., Plaintiffs,

25-cv-8819 (PKC)

-against- ORDER

WESTWOOD FUNDING SOLUTIONS, LLC, DOMINICK CURATOLA, and JOHN and JANE DOE INVESTORS,

Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------x

CASTEL, U.S.D.J. The limited subject matter jurisdiction of a district court is best addressed at the outset of a case. It falls upon the Court to raise issues of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. The Complaint asserts subject matter jurisdiction based on federal question jurisdiction and diversity of citizenship. (Compl’t ¶¶ 14-15.) “It is firmly established that diversity of citizenship should be distinctly and positively averred in the pleadings, or should appear with equal distinctness in other parts of the record.” Leveraged Leasing Admin. Corp. v. PacifiCorp Cap., Inc., 87 F.3d 44, 47 (2d Cir. 1996). “It is axiomatic that diversity jurisdiction is available only when all adverse parties to a litigation are completely diverse in their citizenships.” Washington Nat’l Ins. Co. v. OBEX Grp. LLC, 958 F.3d 126, 133 (2d Cir. 2020) (quotation marks omitted). Where a complaint premised upon diversity of citizenship names a limited liability company as a party, it must allege the citizenship of natural persons who are members of the limited liability company as well as the place of incorporation and principal place of business of any corporate entities that are members of the limited liability company. See Platinum- Montaur Life Sciences, LLC v. Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 943 F.3d 613, 615 (2d Cir. 2019).

The Complaint asserts that defendant Westwood Funding Solutions, LLC is a limited liability company organized under New York law with a principal place of business in Brooklyn, New York. (Compl’t ¶ 9.) It does not identify the citizenship of any members of the limited liability company. The Complaint also asserts that defendant Dominick Curatola “resides” in New York. (Compl’t ¶ 10.) For the purposes of alleging diversity jurisdiction, “residence alone is insufficient to establish domicile for jurisdictional purposes.” Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Companies, Inc., 935 F.3d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 2019). “‘An individual’s citizenship, within the meaning of the diversity statute, is determined by his domicile . . . [in other words] the place where a person has

his true fixed home and principal establishment, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning.’” Id. at 53 (brackets and ellipsis in original; quoting Palazzo ex rel. Delmage v. Corio, 232 F.3d 38, 42 (2d Cir. 2000)); see also Avant Cap. Partners, LLC v. W108 Dev. LLC, 387 F. Supp. 3d 320, 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“Residences matter only if they assist in establishing domicile and citizenship.”) (Stanton, J.). Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, plaintiffs may serve interrogatories as to the citizenship of Dominick Curatola, and, as to Westwood Funding Solutions, LLC, the citizenship of all natural persons who are its members, and if any corporation is a member, the jurisdiction under whose laws it is incorporated and the principal place of business. The defendants shall serve their responses to the interrogatories within fourteen (14) days. Within forty-five (45) days of this Order, the plaintiffs shall amend their complaint to correct the jurisdictional deficiencies by truthfully and accurately alleging the citizenship of each defendant. If, by this date, plaintiffs fail to allege complete diversity of citizenship, the action will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without further notice to any party. SO ORDERED. LZ Fees LZ Pl United States District Judge Dated: New York, New York October 29, 2025

-3-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Haymount Urgent Care P.C. and Robert A. Clinton, Jr. v. Westwood Funding Solutions, LLC, Dominick Curatola, and John and Jane Doe Investors, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haymount-urgent-care-pc-and-robert-a-clinton-jr-v-westwood-funding-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack