The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 129-142, 148-149, 152 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Relevant Factual1 and Procedural History This matter arises from Defendant’s alleged wrongful interference with Plaintiff’s business through the acquisition of Plaintiff’s former employees and clients. NYSCEF Doc. No. 131 (Am. Compl.). Plaintiff Acrisure, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Acrisure”) is a Michigan limited liability company with its principal place of business in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Id. at 7. Defendant Woodruff-Sawyer & Co. (“Defendant” or “Woodruff”) is a California corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. Id. at 8. Acrisure provides “intelligence-driven financial services solutions across many industries including the insurance brokerage industry.” Id. at 21. Woodruff is a competitor business in the insurance brokerage industry. Id. at 22. Non-Parties Matthew Kelly (“Kelly”), Christopher Iovino (“Iovino”), Robert Kempner (“Kempner”), Michael Rella (“Rella”), Robert Trager (“Trager”), and Eric Wagner (“Wagner”) (collectively, the “Woodbury Executives”) are former high-level employees of Acrisure.2 Id. at
9-14. The Woodbury Executives resigned from their positions with Acrisure on March 15, 2024. Id. Departure of the Woodbury Executives In Fall 2023, Woodruff began communicating with Kelly about leaving Acrisure to lead the opening of Woodruff’s new office in Woodbury, New York. Id. at 29. In December 2023, representatives of Defendant met with Non-Parties Kelly, Wagner, Kempner, Trager, and Rella. Id. Kelly would later inform Iovino of his opportunity to join Defendant. Id. Subsequently, Defendant began negotiating terms of employment with the Woodbury Executives, with Kelly acting as the primary point of contact. Id. Defendant’s employees worked with the Woodbury Executives to coordinate their exit. Id. at 30. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant further coordinated with the Woodbury Executives to plan and implement the solicitation of Plaintiff’s customers and other employees using Plaintiff’s resources, including confidential and proprietary information. Id. at 31. Plaintiff alleges the Woodbury Executives were aware of their Non-Solicitation Covenants and Confidentiality obligations to Plaintiff and, as part of negotiations, provided said agreements to Defendant, placing Defendant on notice of their obligations thereunder. Id. at
