The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document numbers (Motion 001) 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 49, 50, 51, 52, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, and 64 were read on this motion to DISMISS. SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION In this breach of contract action, defendants initially moved to dismiss the complaint based on documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1); for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7); and for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8). The court, by decision and order dated February 6, 2023, denied the motion without prejudice to renewal, and ordered jurisdictional discovery pursuant to CPLR 3211(d) (decision and order, NYSCEF Doc. No. 57). By letter to the court dated April 25, 2023, defendants withdrew “the motion to dismiss to the extent it seeks to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds, and respectfully request[ed] that the Court renew the motion to dismiss on the basis of the other grounds stated therein” (letter to the court from defendants’ counsel, dated April 25, 2023, NYSCEF Doc. No. 60). Accordingly, the court now turns to the remainder of defendants’ motion as previously briefed. The court assumes familiarity with the facts of this action as set forth in its original decision on the motion. Plaintiff alleges three causes of action: breach of contract; fraudulent inducement to contract; and unfair competition, both at common law and in violation of General Business Law §349. Defendants first argue that the allegations of the complaint constitute an impermissible group pleading, asserting that it is not clearly alleged what wrongdoing was committed by each individual defendant (e.g., Principia Partners LLC v. Swap Fin. Group, LLC, 194 AD3d 584, 584 [1st Dept 2021]). Plaintiff, however, does allege specific and separate conduct by each defendant. Defendant Invisi Smart Global, LLC (“Global”), is the signatory to the contract with plaintiff (contract, NYSCEF Doc. No. 16). Plaintiff alleges that defendant Invisi Smart Technologies UK Ltd. (“UK Parent”) did significant work promoting the competition at which its products were featured and continues to promote its association with plaintiff’s Miss Universe pageant on its social media accounts (complaint, NYSCEF Doc. No. 1,
41-43). Plaintiff alleges that defendant Saba Yussouf (“Yussouf”), UK Parent’s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), appeared during the Miss Universe pageant’s worldwide broadcast and presented an award; personally owns the “Invisi Smart Technologies” trademark in the United States; continues to associate herself personally with Miss Universe on social media; and uses both UK Parent and Global as alter egos for her own increased notoriety (id.,
