alleged acts that gave rise to the misappropriation of trade secrets causes of action were sufficiently separate from defendants' New York activities such that the causes of action did not arise from those New York activities. See also Faherty v. Fender, 572 F. Supp. 142, 146-48 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (plaintiff's causes of action involving defendant's alleged misconduct in Texas litigation involving contract did not arise from contract negotiations in New York); U.S. Mexican Development Corp. v. Condor, No. 91 Civ. 5925, 1992 WL 27179, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 1992) (same).
The present action differs from those cases, however, because SAS's cause of action (unjust enrichment) is more closely bound with Worldwide's New York activities.*fn3 Bart and Garfinkel traveled to New York to try and sell their products to SAS. Sobo expressed interest in purchasing "slap wraps." The parties subsequently entered into a contract for the sale of "slap wraps," and SAS paid for the products in full. Worldwide allegedly sent another invoice for "slap wraps" that SAS never ordered, and SAS accidentally paid for those slap wraps because they thought it related to their previous purchase. SAS now argues that Worldwide was unjustly enriched because SAS paid it for "slap wraps" it never ordered or received. In sum, Worldwide's alleged unjust enrichment is substantially proximate to its New York activities — a meeting where it solicited SAS's business and had preliminary discussions concerning the sale of slap wraps.
Thus, the present case is more similar to GB Marketing USA Inc. v. Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co., 782 F. Supp. 763, 770 (W.D.N.Y. 1991). In GB Marketing, the court addressed whether it could exercise jurisdiction under Section 302(a)(1) on plaintiff's promissory estoppel, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment claims. "[T]he combined effect of [defendant's New York] activities," the court concluded, "was, allegedly, to create a potentially lost-lasting business relationship between [the parties], pursuant to which [plaintiff] undertook to promote the sale of [defendant's] product. It is out of that relationship that these claims arise." GB Marketing USA Inc., 782 F. Supp. at 771. See also United Feature Syndicate, Inc. v. Miller Features Syndicate, Inc., 216 F. Supp.2d 198 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (finding nexus between plaintiff's causes of action, including unjust enrichment, and defendant's New York activities); Stewart v. Adidas AG., No. 96 Civ. 6670, 1997 WL 218431 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 1997) (finding nexus between plaintiff's copyright claim and defendant's New York activities); Edel Gems, Inc. v. Continental Jewelers, Inc., No. 91 Civ. 7030, 1992 WL 88174, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 1992) (finding nexus between plaintiff's claim and defendant's activities in New York that created likelihood of a more solid business relationship); Hedlund v. Products From Sweden, Inc., 698 F. Supp. 1087, 1091 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (finding nexus between plaintiff's tort claim and defendant's negotiations in New York).
For the reasons stated above, Worldwide's motion to dismiss is denied. This is the decision and order of the Court.