MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Bullion Shark LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Bullion Shark”) filed a Complaint for damages and injunctive relief against Defendants Flip A Coin Bullion, LLC (“Flip A Coin” or the “Corporate Defendant”), Matthew Forman, Christina Cappello, Jacob Forman, and Joseph Forman (collectively, “Individual Defendants”) to stop them from allegedly stealing confidential information and trade secrets concerning Plaintiff’s potential and current customers and the pricing of its products — rare coins and precious metals. Compl., ECF No. 1. The Complaint brings claims for violation of: (1) the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, 18 U.S.C. §1836 (“DTSA”); (2) the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §1030 (“CFAA”); and New York common law protections against (3) trade secret misappropriation, (4) unfair competition, (5) tortious interference with contractual relations, business relations, and prospective economic advantage, (6) unjust enrichment, (7) breach of contract, (8) conversion, (9) violation of the faithless servant doctrine, (10) breach of duty of loyalty, and (11) breach of fiduciary duty. Compl. 1. On November 17, 2023, Bullion Shark filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction requesting eleven forms of temporary and/or preliminary injunctive relief. ECF Nos. 15-18. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion, Memorandum of Law, the Declaration of Kyle F. Monaghan, the Declaration of Nicholas Adamo and attached exhibits, an opposition submission filed by the Individual Defendants while they were proceeding pro se, as well as correspondence from Plaintiff and the Individual Defendants exchanged prior to Defendants’ retention of counsel. ECF Nos. 21-23, 25, 27-32.1 The Court held hearings on Bullion Shark’s TRO motion on November 28, 2023 and November 30, 2023. For the following reasons, and those set forth on the record during the November 30, 2023 hearing, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and reserves decision on the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction pending an evidentiary hearing. JURISDICTION The Court has federal question jurisdiction over Bullion Shark’s Defend Trade Secrets Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1331. Because the remaining state law claims are part of the same case or controversy and arise out of the same common nucleus of operative facts, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). The Court has personal jurisdiction over Corporate Defendant Flip A Coin and Individual Defendants Matthew and Jacob Forman and Christina Cappello because they have minimum contacts with New York. “Where the claim arises out of, or relates to, the defendant’s contacts with the forum… — i.e., specific jurisdiction is asserted — minimum contacts necessary to support such jurisdiction exist where the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in the forum and could foresee being haled into court there.” See Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 732 F.3d 161, 170 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal citation and brackets omitted). Under New York’s long-arm statute, “a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary…who in person or through an agent…transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state….” N.Y. C.P.L.R. §302(a)(1). Jurisdiction under Section 302(a)(1) requires showing that “(1) [t]he defendant…transacted business within the state” and that “(2) the claim asserted…arise[s] from that business activity.” Sole Resort, S.A. de C.V. v. Allure Resorts Mgmt., LLC, 450 F.3d 100, 103 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing McGowan v. Smith, 52 N.Y.2d 268, 273 (1981)). The second prong of the test “does not require a causal link between the defendant’s New York business activity and a plaintiff’s injury,” but “[i]nstead…requires ‘a relatedness between the transaction and the legal claim such that the latter is not completely unmoored from the former, regardless of the ultimate merits of the claim.’” Licci, 732 F.3d at 168-69 (quoting Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, 20 N.Y.3d 327, 339 (2012)). The Complaint alleges that Bullion Shark is incorporated and maintains its principal place of business in Nassau County, New York. Compl. 4. It further alleges that Defendants Cappello and Matthew and Jacob Forman previously worked for Bullion Shark and signed agreements in which they promised not to disclose Bullion Shark’s confidential information and trade secrets and agreed to restrictive covenants limiting their ability to solicit Bullion Shark’s customers and leads upon termination of their employment. Id.
22, 24-25, 27-28, 30. The Complaint contends that these defendants accessed Bullion Shark’s confidential and proprietary information during their employment, id.
