OPINION & ORDER Plaintiffs Daniel and Juliette Morton (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Defendants Salo Aizenberg (“Aizenberg”) and Maytal Asset Management, LLC d/b/a Downtown Investment Advisory (“DIA”) (together, “Defendants”) for their alleged misconduct relating to a discretionary investment account managed by Defendants. (Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs bring claims for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and unjust enrichment. Presently before the Court is the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (“Rule 12(b)(6)”). For the following reasons. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. BACKGROUND The following facts are derived from the Complaint and the documents referenced therein and are assumed as true for the purposes of this motion. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Plaintiffs Daniel and Juliette Morton, husband and wife, are citizens of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (Compl. at 8.) Aizenberg is a citizen of the State of New York and the sole member of DIA. (Id. at
9-10.) In 2017, Daniel Morton discovered Aizenberg’s investment firm through a web article authored by Aizenberg. (Id. at 11.) Aizenberg’s article was published on the financial website “Seeking Alpha.” (Id.) Aizenberg’s article was about a low-risk, fixed-income investment strategy that Aizenberg provides as a service. (Id.) Aizenberg’s article explained that his strategy was to invest in “Business Development Company-issued bonds, which [Aizenberg] reported as having never defaulted and yield over five percent interest with fixed maturities.” (Id.) Aizenberg’s article reported that “with no risk of default, [the client] could hold the bond to maturity to get principal and interest back.” (Id.) Plaintiffs, meanwhile, were interested in finding an advisor to manage their retirement assets “conservatively.” (Id.) Plaintiffs contacted Aizenberg and inquired about Aizenberg’s services. (Id.) Aizenberg recommended to Plaintiffs that Plaintiffs “should add margin into their portfolio” to boost yield. (Id.) On November 28, 2017, Plaintiffs and Defendants opened an account and executed the Investment Advisory Contract (“Advisory Contract”). (Declaration of Salo Aizenberg (“Aizenberg Dec.”) at Ex. B, ECF No. 21.) During the course of the parties’ contractual relationship, Plaintiffs asked Aizenberg “several times” about the possibility of margin calls. (Compl. at 12.) Aizenberg told Plaintiffs that Aizenberg’s recommended strategy would leave Plaintiffs in a “good position to withstand a massive drawdown” and that the risk of a margin call was “negligible.” (Id.) Plaintiff accepted Defendants’ recommendations and allowed Defendants “to manage [Plaintiffs'] savings on a discretionary basis.” (Id.) Three years later, as news of the coronavirus pandemic began to spread in early 2020, Plaintiffs contacted Aizenberg on several occasions about the possibility of margin calls. (Id. at
