OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Dr. Austin Marolla (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendants Devlyn Optical LLC and 20/20 Retail Management LLC (collectively, “Devlyn” or the “Devlyn Defendants”) for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and against Defendants CVS Pharmacy Inc. and CVS AOC Services L.L.C. (collectively, “CVS” or the “CVS Defendants”) for intentional interference with a contractual relationship, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Before me are motions to dismiss the amended complaint from the Devlyn Defendants and from the CVS Defendants. Because Plaintiff failed to allege that Defendants’ conduct breached any binding contract, the motions to dismiss the amended complaint of the Devlyn Defendants and CVS Defendants are GRANTED. I. Background1 On October 10, 2017, Plaintiff received a letter (“Devlyn Offer Letter”) from Devlyn, extending an offer of employment as a Managing Optometrist at one of their locations. (See Am. Compl. 1; Devlyn Offer Letter 1.)2 The Devlyn Offer Letter set forth the proposed terms of employment, including by stating, inter alia: (1) “Your employment with the company is at-will. In other words, either you or the company can terminate your employment at any time for any reason, with or without cause and with or without notice”; (2) “You will also receive an annual bonus of up to $46,500 based on the quality of [your] work, goals and objectives as defined in Appendix 1 of this letter. First bonus would be paid after the conclusion of 2018, on the second payroll of 2019″; and (3) if termination is without cause, “[Devlyn] will give you a minimum of 4-week notice.” (Devlyn Offer Letter 1.) Appendix 1 of the Devlyn Offer Letter included certain goals and objectives for Plaintiff to complete within certain specified time frames. (Id. 3; Am. Compl. 12.) Plaintiff began work for the Devlyn Defendants on October 16, 2017. (Am. Compl. 13.) About one month later, a merger was announced among the Devlyn Defendants and the CVS Defendants. (Id. 14.) On November 27, 2017, Plaintiff received by email a letter from the CVS Defendants (“CVS Offer Letter”), extending an offer of employment as an Employed Optometrist at the CVS Times Square location. (Am. Compl. 15; CVS Offer Letter 1.)3 On December 4, 2017, the CVS Defendants informed Plaintiff that they would not honor any agreement between Plaintiff and the Devlyn Defendants. (Am. Compl. 16.) On December 28, 2017, Plaintiff informed the CVS Defendants that he accepted their offer. (Id. 18. The same day, the CVS Defendants informed Plaintiff that they were rescinding his offer of employment. (Id. 19.) On January 5, 2018, the Devlyn Defendants notified Plaintiff that his payroll would terminate January 31, 2018, pursuant to the Devlyn Offer Letter, and his payroll terminated on that date. (Id.
21-22.) II. Procedural History Plaintiff originally filed this action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, on July 6, 2018. (Doc. 3-1.) The CVS Defendants removed the action to this court on August 16, 2018, (Doc. 3), and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on August 22, 2018. (Doc. 6.) On August 24, 2018, the Devlyn Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 11.) On September 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint, pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 18.) The Devlyn Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on September 18, 2018, (Doc. 19), which was supported by a memorandum of law, (Doc. 20). The following day, the CVS Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, (Doc. 22), which was supported by a memorandum of law, (Doc. 23). Plaintiff filed his opposition on October 19, 2018, to which he attached his affidavit. (Doc. 25.) The Devlyn Defendants filed a reply memorandum on November 2, 2018, (Doc. 26), as did the CVS Defendants. (Doc. 27.) III. Legal Standard To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim will have “facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. This standard demands “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. “Plausibility…depends on a host of considerations: the full factual picture presented by the complaint, the particular cause of action and its elements, and the existence of alternative explanations so obvious that they render plaintiff’s inferences unreasonable.” L-7 Designs, Inc. v. Old Navy, LLC, 647 F.3d 419, 430 (2d Cir. 2011). In considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint and must draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen Inc., 496 F.3d 229, 237 (2d Cir. 2007). A complaint need not make “detailed factual allegations,” but it must contain more than mere “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action…” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, although all allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Id. A complaint is “deemed to include any written instrument attached to it as an exhibit or any statements or documents incorporated in it by reference.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Int’l Audiotext Network, Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 62 F.3d 69, 72 (2d Cir. 1995)). IV. Discussion A. Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 1. Applicable Law “New York law…does not recognize a separate cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when a breach of contract claim, based upon the same facts, is also pled.” Harris v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 310 F.3d 73, 81 (2d Cir. 2002). “A claim for breach of the implied covenant [of good faith and fair dealing] will be dismissed as redundant where the conduct allegedly violating the implied covenant is also the predicate for breach of covenant of an express provision of the underlying contract.” Doyle v. Mastercard Int’l Inc., 700 F. App’x 22, 24 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) (quoting ICD Holdings S.A. v. Frankel, 976 F.Supp. 234, 243-44 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)); see also Nakahata v. New York-Presbyterian Healthcare Sys., Inc., 723 F.3d 192, 203-04 (2d Cir. 2013) (finding that a “claim for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was properly dismissed insofar as it duplicate[d] the breach of contract claims”). 2. Application Plaintiff does not allege any facts in support of his claim against any Defendant for breaches of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing that are distinct from the facts underlying his breach of contract claim. (See Am. Compl.
