Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

U.S. Coachways, Inc. v. Vaccarello

United States District Court, E.D. New York

August 3, 2018

U.S. COACHWAYS, INC., Plaintiff,

          LAW OFFICES OF DOMINICK GULLO Dominick Daniel Gullo Attorneys for Plaintiff

          CAMPOLO MIDDLETON & MCCORMICK, LLP Jeffrey V. Basso Attorneys for Defendants



         Plaintiff U.S. Coachways, Inc. brings this breach of contract action asserting federal subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Presently before the Court is Defendants Anthony Vaccarello, Danny Valdovinos, Dhinel Biyanwila, Michael Spoch, Bus Quote USA, Inc. and Bauer's Intelligent Transportation, Inc.'s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 20-5.) For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion is granted and denied in part.


         The following facts, drawn from the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1, the “Complaint”) and appended exhibit to Defendant's motion (Dkt. No. 20-3, the “Confidentiality Agreement, ” or “Agreement”[1]), are assumed true for purposes of Defendant's motion to dismiss.

         Plaintiff (or the “Company”) is a bus charter and transportation business that both charters its own buses and hires outside vendors to provide busing services to clients. Plaintiff employed Vaccarello as its Vice President of procurement and general manager of, a wholly owned entity, from 2009 through March 2017, when he was terminated for cause. In this capacity, Vaccarello worked directly with Plaintiffs clients and had access to all of Plaintiffs client and vendor lists, as well as marketing, business leads and client information, all of which Plaintiff alleges are confidential. Plaintiff provided Vaccarello with computers containing confidential information necessary to his job duties that enabled him to work remotely. After Vaccarello's termination, he returned the computers to Plaintiff without their hard drives.

         Plaintiff employed Valdovinos, Biyanwila and Spoch under Vaccarello's supervision at various points from 2015 through 2016, and they were all fired for cause. Vaccarello, Valdovinos, Biyanwila and Spoch (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) all signed employment and confidentiality and noncompete agreements with Plaintiff that prohibit them from, among other things, disclosing designated confidential information to those outside the company.

         Vaccarello owns and operates Bus Quote USA, Inc. (“Bus Quote”). Bauer's Intelligent Transportation, Inc. (“Bauer”) has employed Vaccarello since April 2017. Plaintiff alleges that the Individual Defendants used, or are using, confidential information in breach of their respective agreements to gain an unfair competitive advantage over it and to further their own interests.


         When considering a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must determine whether or not a claim is legally sufficient. See Goldman v. Belden, 754 F.2d 1059, 1067 (2d Cir. 1985). In order for a claim to stand, a plaintiff must allege sufficient factual matter to state a claim that can plausibly give rise to entitlement to relief. See Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements” are not legally sufficient to withstand a 12(b)(6) motion. Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662, 678. Instead, a plaintiff must offer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). However, the plaintiff need not set forth a multitude of facts to survive a motion to dismiss; rather, a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief will suffice. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The Court must accept all of the allegations in the complaint as true, and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Reed v. Garden City Union Free Sch. Dist, 987 F.Supp.2d 260, 265 (E.D.N.Y. 2013).

         In considering a motion to dismiss, a court may consider the pleading itself, documents referenced in the complaint, documents that the plaintiff relied on in bringing the suit and matters of which judicial notice may be taken. See Arrocha v. City Univ. of N.Y., 878 F.Supp.2d 364, 368 (E.D.N.Y. 2012).


         A. Plaintiff's ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.