The opinion of the court was delivered by: Scullin, Senior Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Currently before the Court are Plaintiff's motion to remand this action to state court or, in the alternative, to deny Defendants' motion to dismiss the original complaint as moot; Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's original complaint; and Defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the individual Defendants pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court will address each of these motions in turn.
A. Defendants' Cross-Motion to Dismiss the Individual
Defendants pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Defendants filed their cross-motion to dismiss the individual Defendants pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on December 26, 2007. See Dkt. No. 90. On May 1, 2008, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal, in which they agreed to the dismissal of the individual Defendants, David Lysack, Justin Louise, and Brian Harry, from this action with prejudice. See Dkt. No. 97. The Court so ordered that stipulation on May 5, 2008. See Dkt. No. 98. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the individual Defendants as moot.
B. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand this Action to State Supreme Court
Plaintiff originally commenced this action in New York State Supreme Court, Onondaga County, against Defendants David Lysack, Justin Louise, Brian Harry, C Speed, LLC and 316 Corporate Holdings, LLC, alleging ten state-law causes of action, including claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, conversion, breach of fiduciary duties, breach of contract and recision, as well as a federal claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Plaintiff asserted its federal claim solely against two of the individual Defendants, David Lysack and Justin Louise.
On May 18, 2007, Plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction by order to show cause. State Supreme Court Justice Anthony Paris scheduled the preliminary injunction hearing for June 27, 2007, and directed the parties to appear before him on May 22, 2007, for a conference to discuss Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order.
On May 21, 2007, the day before the scheduled conference with Justice Paris, Defendants removed the case to this Court based on the federal claim against the two individual Defendants. See Dkt. No. 1. Thereafter, Plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order, see Dkt. No. 5, which this Court denied on May 26, 2007, see Dkt. No. 13. The Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction on June 5, 2007. On June 13, 2007, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, to which Defendants agreed, and set a schedule for expedited discovery concerning Defendants' radar-related work. See Dkt. No. 34.
On June 29, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. See Dkt. No. 45. Plaintiff filed papers in opposition to that motion. See Dkt. No. 55. For the next several months, the parties engaged in some limited discovery under the direction of Magistrate Judge DiBianco.
On November 13, 2007, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint as of right under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dkt. No. 82. This amended complaint differed in a number of ways from the original complaint; most significantly for purposes of this motion, Plaintiff did not plead a federal claim. On November 15, 2007, at Defendants' request, Magistrate Judge DiBianco suspended all further discovery until this Court decided whether to remand this action to state court. On December 11, 2007, Plaintiff filed its pending ...