United States District Court, E.D. New York
U.S. COACHWAYS, INC., Plaintiff,
ANTHONY VACCARELLO, DANNY VALDOVINOS, DHINEL BIYANWILA, MICHAEL SPOCH, BUS QUOTE USA, INC., and BAUER'S INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION, INC. Defendants.
OFFICES OF DOMINICK GULLO Dominick Daniel Gullo Attorneys for
CAMPOLO MIDDLETON & MCCORMICK, LLP Jeffrey V. Basso
Attorneys for Defendants
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STERLING JOHNSON, JR., U.S.D.J.
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
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”), are assumed true for purposes of
Defendant's motion to dismiss.
(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 Subout.com, 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.
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
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.
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).
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