DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION In this action, Plaintiff Advance 2000, Inc. (“Advance”) seeks damages from three present and former employees for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and unfair competition. Before this Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Advance’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docket No. 15.) For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion is denied. II. BACKGROUND This Court assumes the truth of the following factual allegations contained in Advance’s Amended Complaint and the attached exhibits.1 See Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trs. of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740, 96 S. Ct. 1848, 48 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1976); see also Hamilton Chapter of Alpha Delta Phi, Inc. v. Hamilton Coll., 128 F.3d 59, 63 (2d Cir. 1997). Advance is a corporation created under the laws of New York with offices in Erie County, New York, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Amended Complaint, 1.) Advance offers “full-service information technology solutions to businesses, including private cloud computing, network design and implementation, integrated communications, and consulting.” (Id., 8.) Advance hired Defendant Matthew Harwick as a business development executive in January 2012, pursuant to an agreement made in Erie County, New York. (Id., 9.) Harwick signed a noncompete and nondisclosure agreement with Advance on January 19, 2012. (Id., 10.) Harwick resigned from Advance in March 2016. (Id., 13.) Advance hired Defendant Paul Brisgone as a senior systems engineer in March 2011. (Id., 14.) Brisgone signed a noncompete and nondisclosure agreement with Advance on April 4, 2011. (Id.,
14-15.) Brisgone was still employed by Advance when the complaint was filed in January 2017. (Id., 18.) Advance hired Defendant Christopher Franz as a systems engineer in September 2013. (Id., 19.) Franz signed a noncompete and nondisclosure agreement with Advance on September 13, 2013. (Id., 20.) He resigned from Advance in September 2014. (Id., 23.) All three defendants were given access to information Advance deemed confidential in its confidentiality agreements. (Id.,
