MEMORANDUM AND ORDERINTRODUCTION Plaintiff Aventura Techonologies, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against Defendant The World of Residensea II, LTD. (“Defendant”) for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and for damages of over $174,000. Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process. For the reasons explained below, the motion to dismiss is denied in its entirety.BACKGROUNDThe following relevant facts come from the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and are assumed true for purposes of this motion.In or about October 2008, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an agreement (“Agreement”) whereby Plaintiff would sell and install certain video surveillance equipment on Defendant’s cruise ship for the sum of $317,350.00. (FAC [DE 25] 9.) Plaintiff claims that by November 4, 2010, it had “completed all work and furnished all labor, supplies, materials, and equipment required under the Agreement” and that the equipment was fully operational. (Id.
12-13.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has had full use of such equipment since November 4, 2010. (Id. 13.) Under the Agreement, the completion of all work meant that Plaintiff was owed the entire contract sum. (Id. 14.) However, to date, Defendant has refused to pay the sum of $50,000.00, which Defendant purports to withhold as retainage. (Id. 15.) Plaintiff asserts that in addition to the original work, it has also performed extra work, “including out-ofwarranty service and repair work, and furnished extra labor, supplies, materials and equipment, outside the scope of the Agreement for [Defendant's] benefit at [Defendant's] request.” (Id. 17.) Plaintiff provides a detailed accounting of the unpaid out-of-warranty labor, supplies, materials, and equipment, which total $124,579.94. (Id. 7.)Plaintiff brought this action on March 1, 2013. (Compl. [DE 1].) On August 16, 2013, Defendant filed a motion to stay pending resolution of a related Florida case. (Motion to Stay [De 28].) The Court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Brown, who granted it on January 28, 2014. During this time, Defendant filed its’ original motion to dismiss that was terminated in January 2014 when the stay was granted. On February 10, 2014, Plaintiff appealed Judge Brown’s decision staying the action. The Court affirmed Judge Brown’s decision on April 6, 2015. Plaintiff appealed this decision to the Second Circuit, which entered an order on April 20, 2016, vacating and remanding the Court’s decision. The Court referred the matter back to Judge Brown on May 23, 2016, to reconsider the motion to stay. Judge Brown issued a second Report & Recommendation on February 24, 2017, denying the stay, which the Court adopted by Order dated March 31, 2017. On October 5, 2017, the Court allowed Defendant to file an amended motion to dismiss. The instant motion was filed on November 13, 2017.DISCUSSIONI. The Parties’ ArgumentsDefendant claims in its Memorandum in Support that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy is only $50,000, and because the action is not maritime in nature. (Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Amended Motion to Dismiss (“Mem. in Supp.”) [DE 62] at 3, 8.) Defendant also argues that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant as a foreign corporation without sufficient connections to New York. (Id. at 11.) Finally, Defendant asserts that there was insufficient service of process. (Id. at 24).In the Memorandum in Opposition, Plaintiff replies that the Court has both diversity and maritime jurisdiction, that Defendant is subject to both personal jurisdiction pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. §302(a)(1) and general jurisdiction pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. §301, and that Defendant has been properly served. (Pl.’s Mem. in Opp. [DE 62-1] at 9 et seq.)II. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdictiona. Rule 12(b)(1) Legal StandardA case may be properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) “when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it.” Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir.2000). “In contrast to the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), a ‘plaintiff asserting subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it exists.’” MacPherson v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., 452 F. Supp. 2d 133, 136 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (quoting Reserve Solutions Inc. v. Vernaglia, 438 F. Supp. 2d 280, 286 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)), aff’d, 273 F. App’x 61 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Tomaino v. United States, 2010 WL 1005896, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2010). “In resolving a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court may consider affidavits and other materials beyond the pleadings to resolve jurisdictional questions.” Cunningham v. Bank of New York Mellon, N.A., 2015 WL 4101839, * 1 (E.D.N.Y. July 8, 2015) (citing Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank, Ltd., 547 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2008)).28 U.S.C. §1332(a) provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different States[.]” Plaintiff must establish “ that it appears to a reasonable probability that the claim is in excess of statutory jurisdictional amount.” Mekhi v. Area Storage & Transfer, Inc., 2018 WL 4043152, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2018) (citing Sec. Plans, Inc. v. CUNA Mut. Ins. Soc’y, 769 F.3d 807, 814 n. 5 (2d Cir. 2014)). The Second Circuit has noted that there is “a rebuttable presumption that the face of the complaint is a good faith representation of the actual amount in controversy.” Am. Safety Cas. Ins. Co. v. 385 Onderdonk Ave., LLC, 124 F. Supp. 3d 237, 241 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (citing Scherer v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of U.S., 347 F.3d 394, 397 (2d Cir. 2003)). “To overcome the face-of-the complaint presumption, the party opposing jurisdiction must show ‘to a legal certainty’ that the amount recoverable does not meet the jurisdictional threshold.” Scherer, 347 F.3d at 397. This is a very high bar. “[T]he legal impossibility of recovery must be so certain as to virtually negative the plaintiff’s good faith in asserting the claim.” Pyskaty v. Wide World of Cars, LLC, 856 F.3d 216, 229 (2d Cir. 2017) (citing Tongkook America, Inc. v. Shipton Sportswear Co., 14 F.3d 781, 785 (2d Cir. 1994). “[E]ven where the allegations leave grave doubt about the likelihood of recovery of the requisite amount, dismissal is not warranted. Pyskaty, 856 F.3d at 229 (citing Zacharia v. Harbor Island Spa, Inc., 684 F.2d 199, 202 (2d Cir. 1982)).b. The Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is DeniedAs stated above, Defendant claims that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. (Mem. in Supp. at 3.) The FAC, on the other hand, sets forth damages in an amount of $50,000 under the original Agreement, and another $124,579.94 in out-of-warranty work, supplies, materials, and equipment, for a total of $174,579.94. (FAC
