Tandym Group, LLC v Mission Staffing Inc. 2024 NY Slip Op 32960(U) August 21, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 655839/2023 Judge: Margaret A. Chan Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.INDEX NO. 655839/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/21/2024

1 of 9 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISIONPART 49M

---------------------------------------------------------·-------------------X

TANDYM GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff,

-vMISSION STAFFING INC. and PAUL HERMAN,
Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
HON. MARGARETA. CHAN: INDEX NO. 655839/2023

MOTION DATE 03/25/2024

MOTION SEQ. NO. 001

DECISION+ ORDER ON MOTION

The following e-filed documents, listedbyNYSCEF documentnumber (MS00l) 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25
were read on this motionto/for DISMISS PlaintiffTandym Group, LLC (Tandym) brings this action against defendants Mission StaffingInc. (Mission) and Paul Herman (Herman, and together with Mission, defendants) asserting claims in connection with defendants' purported solicitation ofemployees and clients from Tandym and their purported misappropriation ofTandym's confidential information. Now before the court is defendants' motion, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(l) and (a)(7), for an order dismissing the Complaint (NYSCEF # 6). Tandym opposes the motion. For the following reasons, defendants' motion is granted.

Tandym is Delaware limited liability company thatprovides full-service recruitment, temporary staffing, and workforce solutions ((NYSCEF # 2, Complaint or compl 

### ,,i 20, 43). Herman is a former employee for Tandym who held the position ofVice President, Professional Services, between 2011 to 2023 (id 

# ,ii 2, 21, 24). Herman was responsible for hiring employees, generating new business, and maintaining and growing business with existing clients (see 

### id 

### 11 25·28). According to the Complaint, Tandym required its employees to sign certain non·solicitation, non-competition, and confidentiality agreements so as to protect the confidential information, trade secrets, and client relationships and goodwill for

1The following facts are drawnfrom the Complaint and the exhibits accompanying the parties' submissionsin connection with defendants' motion. These facts, to the extentnot refuted by documentary evidence, are assumed true solelyfor purposes ofresolving defendants' motion.

655839/2023 TANDYM GROUP, LLC vs. MISSION STAFFING INC. ET AL Page 1 of g Motion No. 001



### [* 1]INDEX NO. 655839/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/21/2024

2 of 9 whichit had devoted substantialresources to cultivate andpreserve (see compl 

### ,r,r 41·50). Tandym maintains that Herman signed these agreements while employed with the company (see id 

### ,r,r 7, 33, 41). Although its Complaint quotes various terms ofthis purported restrictive covenant agreement with Herman (seecompl 

### ,r,r 34·39), Tandym did not submit with the Complaint a copy ofany such agreement(s). 2 By contrast, in connection withtheir motion, defendants did submit a Confidentiality and Non·Solicitation Agreement, dated December 15, 2011 (the Agreement), that contains certain ofthe alleged non-solicitation and confidentialityprovisions alleged in the Complaint 

### (compare NSYCEF # 12 -Agreement§§ 1.1, 1.2, 2.2 

### with compl 

### ,r,r 34, 36·38), although this Agreement is between Herman and an entity called The Execu 

### ISearch Group, Inc. (Execu 

### ISearch) (seeAgreement at 1). As relevant here, Section 2 ofthe Agreement sets forth Herman's non· solicitation obligations to Execu

### ISearch. Section 2.2 provided that Herman would not (a) "[d]isclose, use, exploit, rely upon or take any advantage ofin any way whatsoever, directly or indirectly any ofExecu 

### ISearch's openjob orders," (b) "[d]islcose, contact, use, exploit, rely upon or take advantage ofin any way whatsoever, directly orindirectly, any ofExecu 

### ISearch's candidates" (c) "[i]nfluence or attempt to influence

... a job candidate, supplier or customer

... to terminate or modify any written or oralAgreement or course ofdealing with the Firm," and (d) "[i]influence or attempt to influence

... a supplier or customer

... for the purpose of offering or selling any services which are identical, substantially similar or comparable to the services offered by the Firm" (Agreement§ 2.2[a]·[d]; compl 

## ,r,r 8, 34). Section 2.3-whichis not referenced in the Complaint-in turn provided that Herman would not, following his employment, directly or indirectly

... influence or attempt to influence anyperson to (i) terminate or modify his employmentwiththe Firm; (ii) solicit for employment, directly or indirectly, anyperson employedby the Firm as an employee; or (iii) employ or otherwise retain the services of, directly or indirectly, anyperson employed by the Firm as an employee during the time that [Herman] was employed by the Firm (Agreement§ 2.3). 3 Tandym claims that these non-solicitationrestrictions were imposed on Herman for a 12·monthperiod 

### (see compl 

### ,r,r 8, 34·35). But the

2 Tandym states that the "non-solicitation, non-complete [sicl, and confidentiality agreements" were attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A and Exhibit B (see e.g. comp!

### ,r,r 33, 37). But a review ofthe docket and pleadings makes clearthat 110exhibitswere actually submitted with the Complaint. 3 Tandym alleges that Herman agreed that (1) "for a period oftwelve months following his separationfrom employment," he would not "directly orindirectly

...performjob activities ofthe type [Herman], or [Herman's] subordinates, performed orprovided for Tandym within the two years preceding [Herman's] termination that are competitive with the line ofservices provided by [Herman] for the Tandym," and (2) this restriction applied "within twenty-five miles ofthe locations

655839/2023 TANDYM GROUP, LLC vs. MISSION STAFFING INC. ET AL Page 2 of g Motion No. 001



### [* 2]INDEX NO. 655839/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/21/2024

3 of 9 Agreement actuallyprovides that Section 2.2's restrictions would be inplace "for a period ofeighteen (18) months following cessation ofsuch employment," and that Section 2.3's restrictions would last for a period of"two (2) years following cessation of [Herman's] employment" (Agreement§§ 2.2, 2.3). The Agreement contains no geographical limitation to these restrictions (seegenerallyAgreement §§ 2.1·2.5). Section 1 ofthe Agreement addressed Herman's confidentialityrestrictions. Inparticular, pursuant to Section 1.2, Herman agreed to "hold in strictest confidence, and not to disclose or allow tobe disclosed

... and not to use ... Confidential Information, including Confidential Information developed by [Herman], without the express permission ofan officer ofthe Firm" (Agreement § 1.2; seealsocompl 

### 11 36·37). "Confidential Information," in turn, was defined as "any information that is not generallyknown to the public," with the Agreement then enumerating a list ofexamples (Agreement§ 1.1; comp! 

### ,r 38). Tandym alleges that, throughout his employment, Herman gained knowledge about high-performing employees in his division atTandym (comp! 

### ,r 26). It further asserts that Herman became "intimatelyfamiliar" with Tandym's confidential information, including ''.[c]lient lists," "[p]rospective client lists," [c]urrent and historical client account information," "[f]inancialinformation," "Tandym'sbusiness development plans, products, strategies, revenue projections, financial planning, and accounts receivable information," the "terms ofTandym's agreements and financial arrangements," various internal materials belongingto Tandym, employee financial information, and Tandym's analyses and strategies (id 

### ,r 30). Tandym maintains that this information was protected on a password·protected network (id 

## ,r 31). Eventually, on May 1, 2023, Hermanresigned from his position at Tandym andbecame a Partner at Mission, a New York corporation that, like Tandym, provides full-service recruitment, temporary staffing, and workforce solutions (comp! 

### 11 2, 22). Then, betweenMay 1, 2023, and September 5, 2023, five employees in Tandyrp_'s Professional Services Division-all ofwhom either directly or indirectly reported to Herman-resigned from their employment, without prior notice, and immediatelyjoinedMission (seeid 

### 11 3, 5, 51, 53·54). The Complaint does not indicate (a) what, ifany, confidential information was misappropriatedby Herman and/or Mission, (b) how, ifat all, such informationconstituted confidential information or a trade secret, or (c) which, ifany, clients were solicited by defendants (seegenerallyid 

### 11 30, 65·68, 78·79, 92·93, 100·102, 107·110). Tandym claims, upon information and belief, that these employees' departures were part ofa raid conducted byMission with Herman's assistance (see compl 

### 11 4, 12·14, 52, 54·55). Although the Complaint does not identify any ofthe

where the employee worked for Tandym" (compl

### ,r,r 9, 35). Butthere is no suchrestriction or geographical limitation in the Agreement.

655839/2023 TANOYM GROUP, LLC vs. MISSION STAFFING INC. ET AL Motion No. 001 Page 3of9



### [* 3]INDEX NO. 655839/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/21/2024

4 of 9 five employees by name, defendants submit certain emails related to three former Tandym employees that were fired by Tandym, which defendants claim undercuts Tandym's contention that the at-issue employees had resigned (NYSCEF# 13).4 legal

### Standard CPLR 3211(a) provides for various grounds under which a party may move to dismiss one or more causes ofaction, includingwhen a pleading "fails to state a cause ofaction" (CPLR 3211 [a] [7]) or "a defense is founded upon documentary evidence" (CPLR 3211 [a] [1]). On a motion to dismiss pursuantto CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court "must accept as true the facts as alleged in the complaint and submissions in opposition to the motion, accord plaintiff[] the benefit ofeverypossible favorable inference and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable. legal theory" ( 

### Whitebox Concentrated ConvertibleArbitragePartners, L.P. v Superior WellServs., Inc., 20 NY3d 59, 63 [2012]). Whether a plaintiffcan ultimately establish its allegations is not considered when determining a motion to dismiss 

### (EBC

### L Inc. v Goldman, Sachs 

### & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]). However, the court will not accept as true "conclusory allegations offact or law not supported by allegations ofspecific fact" ( 

### Wilson v Tully, 243 AD2d 229, 234 [1st Dept 1998]). Dismissal based on documentary evidence is warranted "where 'it has been shown that a material fact as claimedby the pleader is not a fact at all and no significant dispute exists regarding it"' 

### (Acquista v

### N. Y. 

### LifeIns. Co., 285 AD2d 73, 76 [1st Dept 2001] [alterations omitted]). In "those circumstances where the legal conclusions and factual allegations are flatly contradictedby documentary evidence, they are notpresumed to be true or accorded every favorable inference" 

### (Morgenthow 

### &Latham v Bankof N. Y. 

### Co., 305 AD2d 74, 78 [1st Dept 2003] [internalquotation omitted]). 

### Discussion In moving to dismiss, defendants first focus on Tandym's breach ofcontract claims, arguing that Tandym failed to establish (1) that it is a party to the Agreement, (2) that the Agreement's restrictive covenants are enforceable, or (3) that any purportedly disclosed confidentialinformation constitutes a trade secret warranting protection 

### (see NYSCEF # 10-MOLat 9·15; NYSCEF # 25- Reply at 4·6). Defendants next argue that Tandym's breach offiduciary duty claim fails because it is duplicative ofTandym's breach ofcontract claims 

### (seeMOL at 15· 16; Reply at 7·8). Turning to Tandym's tortious interference with contract claim, defendants contend that, not only has Tandym failed to plead that there is a valid

4 Defendants also submit an affidavit by Herman settingforth additional factual averments concerning his and other employees' departure from Tandym (see NYSCEF # 11). The court does not consider these additional facts on this motion because "factual affidavits do not constitute documentary evidence" that can be considered "withinthe meaning of' CPLR 3211(a)(l) (see Serao v Bench·Serao, 149AD3d 645, 646 [1st Dept 2017)).

655839/2023 TANDYM GROUP, LLC vs. MISSION STAFFING INC. ET AL Motion No. 001 Page4of 9



### [* 4]INDEX NO. 655839/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/21/2024

5 of 9 contract, but it has also failed to allege that the Agreement would not have been breached "but for" Mission's conduct 

### (seeMOL at 17·18; Reply at 8). And with regard to the tortious interference withbusiness relations claim, defendants aver that Tandym failed to establish that defendants acted with malice in engagingin anypurported interference 

### (seeMOL at 18·20; Reply at 8·9). Finally, addressing Tandym's misappropriation ofconfidentialinformation and unfair competition claims, defendants maintain that Tandym failed to allege any acts of misappropriation or identify any confidential information that was misappropriated 

### (seeMOL at 22·23; Reply at 9·12). · Tandym's opposition largely fails to grapple with defendants' bases for dismissal. After acknowledging that the Complaint does not cite to the correct restrictive covenant agreement, Tandym first contends that it nevertheless sufficiently alleges the relevant terms ofthe Agreement, that those terms are reasonable as to time and scope, and that Hermanbreached them (NYSCEF # 21

- Opp at 4·8). But the remainder ofTandym's opposition then argues that it has properlypleaded alternative tort cause ofaction because the Agreement is in dispute 

### (see id at 9·13). 5 The court addresses these contentions in turn. 

### I. Breach ofContract Claims (First. Second, and Fifth Causes ofAction) To sufficiently plead a cause ofaction for breach ofcontract, a plaintiffmust allege that (1) a contract exists, (2) plaintiffperformed under the contract, (3) defendant breached its contractual obligations, and (4) defendant's breach resulted in damages 

### (34·06-73, LLCv Seneca Ins. Co., 39 NY3d 44, 52 [2022]). And to state a claim for tortious interference with contract, a plaintiffmust allege "(1) the existence ofa valid contract betweenplaintiffand a thirdparty; (2) the defendant's knowledge ofthat contract; (3) the defendant's intentional procuring ofthe breach; and (4) damages" 

### (C.H.A. Design Export (H.K)Ltd vMiller, 191 AD3d 459, 459 [1st Dept 2021], quoting 

### Foster v Churchill, 87 NY2d 744, 749·750 [1996]). As the above makes clear, for either claim, the existence ofa valid contract is central. Here, the crux ofTandym's two breach ofcontract claims is that Herman, upon accepting his new position atMission, breached his restrictive covenants by (1) "soliciting, servicing or otherwise interfering with Tandym's relationships" with clients orprospective clients and (2) using or disclosing confidential information and trade secrets (compl 

### ,r,r 57·62, 64·69). Similarly, Tandym's tortious interference with contract claim avers that Mission caused Herman to breach his restrictive covenants by "inducing, encouraging or helping Herman [to] solicit Tandym's clients" and to misappropriate Tandym's "confidential information and trade secrets" (id 

### ,r,r 91·96). These claims, however, are ultimately defective for one

5 Tandym also spends severalpages ofits opposition arguingthat ithas sufficientlypleaded damages · (Opp at 8·9). But defendants did not raise this as a basisfor dismissal in their movingpapers.

655839/2023 TANDYM GROUP, LLC vs. MISSION STAFFING INC. ET AL Motion No. 001 Page 5of9



### [* 5]INDEX NO. 655839/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/21/2024

6 of 9 particularly glaring reason: Tandym has not established the existence ofa valid contract between it and Herman. Although the Complaint avers that restrictive covenants to which Herman agreed arose from an agreementbetween Herman and Tandym 

### (see compl 

## ,r,r 7·8, 33·34), the documentary evidence supplied by defendants-which Tandym does not dispute 

### (see Opp at 4·5)-establishes that the Agreement is between Herman and an entitycalled Execu 

### ISearch, not Tandym

### (seeAgreement at 1). Nothing inthe Complaint suggests that that Execu 

### ISearch and Tandym are the same entityor that Tandym otherwise succeeded or retained Execu 

### ISearch's rights under the Agreement. Accordingly, as alleged, there is no basis to conclude or infer that Tandym has contractual privitywith Herman under the Agreement so as to allow Tandym to sustain its breach ofcontract and tortious interference with contract claims 

### (see Perma Pave Contr. Corp. vPaerdegatBoatandRacquet Club, Inc., 156 AD2d 550, 551 [1st Dept 1989] [holding that a party may not assert a claim to recover damages for breachofcontract againstpartywithwhom it is notinprivity]; 

### Naderi v

### N. Shore-Longls. Jewish-Health Sys., 2014 WL 840417, at *3 [Sup Ct, NY County, Feb. 28, 2014], 

### affd 135 AD3d 619 [1st Dept 2016] [holding that plaintiff failed to adequately demonstrate any contractualrelationship betweenparties, and thus failed to establishthe existence ofa valid contract]; 

### seealsoMidAmerica Prods., Inc. vDerke, 33 Misc3d 1209[A], at *3 [Sup Ct, NY County, 2010] [dismissingbreach ofrestrictive covenant claim when there were "[nlo allegations that [defendants] entered into noncompetitive covenants with plaintiffs"]). In an effort to avoid this conclusion, Tandym asserts for the first time in its opposition that it was "formerlyknown as Execu 

### ISearch Group prior to a rebrandingin June 2022" (Opp at 5 n.1). This stray assertion-which appears in a footnote-fails resuscitate Tandym's claims. As an initial matter, to the extent Tandym is seemingly attempting to amend its Complaint to rectify the defect establishedby defendants' documentary evidence, it is not permitted to informally amend its complaintthrough its opposition brief

### (seeMediaXposureLtd (Cayman) v OmnireliantHoldings, Inc., 29 Misc 3d 1215[A], at *5 [Sup Ct, NY County, 2010] ["plaintiffseeks to amend the complaint through an opposition brief, which is not permissible"]; 

### Rosenbergv HomeBox OU:, Inc., 2006 WL 5436822, at *10 [Sup Ct, NY County, 2006] [observing that a "plaintiffmay not amend his complaint to add a new legal theory via statementsin a memorandum oflaw in oppositionto a pending dispositive motion"], 

### affd33 AD3d 550 [1st Dept 2006]). At any rate, Tandym'sbare, unsupported assertion, without more factual supportorcontext, fails to establish the necessaryprivity for it to maintain a breach ofcontract claim under the Agreement 

### (seegenerallyMcCormick vFavreau, 82 AD3d 1537, 1541 [3d Dept 2011] [affirming dismissal ofbreach ofcontract claim where plaintiffs failed to offer any "affidavits or other evidence" in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss in orderto support a "materialelement" ofplaintiffs' claim]).

655839/2023 TANDYM GROUP, LLC vs. MISSION STAFFING INC. ET AL Motion No. 001 Page 6 of9



### [* 6]INDEX NO. 655839/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/21/2024

7 of 9 Even if, however, privity was established, dismissal ofthe Complaint, as currentlypleaded, would still be warranted. Though the Complaint largely focuses on defendants' purported solicitation offive employees as part ofits recitation of factual allegations, a careful review ofTandym's Agreement-based causes ofaction reveals that they do not actually target defendants' purported solicitation of employees. Rather, as noted above, Tandym's claims are premised solely on a purported solicitation of"clients," as well as the misappropriation ofunspecified confidential information (seecompl 

## ,r,r 57·62, 64·69, 91·96). As the master ofits complaint, Tandym is entitled to focus on whatever conduct it so chooses in support ofits claims. 6 But upon focusing on the solicitation ofclients and misappropriation ofconfidential information, Tandym thenfails to supply any critical details in support, includingwhich, ifany, clientswere purportedly solicited or interfered withby defendants, or what, ifany, confidentialinformationwas misappropriated. Without these critical details, Tandym's claimsplainly fail to provide adequate notice ofthe transactions, occurrences, or series oftransactions or occurrence at issue (CPLR 3013; 

### see Trans-Continental Credit 

### & Collection Corp. vFoti, 270 AD2d 250, 250 [2d Dept 2000] [dismissingtortious interference claim where plaintiffsought to recover damages for interference with the agreement ofunnamed employees]). In sum, defendants' motion to dismiss Tandym's First, Second, and Fifth Causes ofAction is granted, andthese are dismissed.

IL Breach ofFiduciary Duty Claim (Third Cause ofAction) The crux ofTandym's breach offiduciary duty claim against Herman is that Herman breached unspecified fiduciary duties to Tandym by "soliciting or diverting Tandym's clients and business opportunities" to Mission andby "subverting or misappropriatingTandym's confidential information and trade secrets" (compl 

## ,r,r 73·76). These allegations, however, are nearly identical to those underlying Tandym's breach ofcontract claims and largely seekthe same damages (cf

### id 

## ,r,r 57·62, 64·69). As such, Tandym's breach offiduciary claim are dismissed as duplicative 

### (Ullmann-Schneider vLacher&Lovell-Taylor? P.C., 121 AD3d 415,416 [1st Dept 2014] [dismissingbreach offiduciary duty claim as duplicative where claim was based on the same allegations as breach ofcontract claim]); III. Tortious Interference with Business Relationships (Fourth Cause ofAction) To state a claim for tortious interference with business relations, a plaintiff must show "(1) the existence ofa business relationship or its expectancy with a third·party; (2) defendant's interference withthe relationship; (3) that defendant

6 To be clear, Tandym certainly knew how to draft a cause ofaction focusing on the purported improper solicitation ofemployees, as its Fifth Cause ofAction alleges that "Mission encouraged Hermanto use Tandym's confidential information and trade secrets to unlawfully solicit Tandym's clients and employees" (compl 

### ,r 79).

655839/2023 TANDYM GROUP, LLC vs. MISSION STAFFING INC. ET AL Motion No. 001 Page 7 of9



### [* 7]INDEX NO. 655839/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/21/2024

8 of 9 acted with the sole purpose ofharmingplaintiffor used dishonest, unfair or improper means; and (4) that plaintiffsustained damages" 

### (Icahn vLions Gate Entertainment Corp., 31 Misc 3d 1205[A], at *12·13 [Sup Ct, NY County, 2011], citing 

### Carvel Corp. v

### Noonan, 3 NY3d 182, 190 [2004]; 

### NBTBancorp. v 

### Fleet/NorstarFin. Group, Inc., 87 NY2d 614, 620·625 [1996]; 

### Guard-Life Corp. v S. 

### ParkerHardwareMfg. 

### Corp., 50 NY2d 183, 190-197 [1990])). Such claims require allegations that defendants' "conduct was motivated solely by malice or to inflict injuryby unlawful means goingbeyond mere self-interest or other economic considerations" 

### (Bradbury v

### Israel, 204AD3d 563, 564·565 [1st Dept 2022]). Here, Tandym failed to sufficiently allege that defendants acted with malice or an intent to injure Tandym. As alleged, Tandym's tortious interference with business relations claims flows from the fact that Mission purportedly encouraged Herman to "use Tandym's confidential information andtrade secrets" to solicit Tandym's clients and employees and obtain an unfair advantage in its competition with Tandym (compl 

## ,r 79). Notably missing from Complaint are anyallegations explaining 

### how, ifat all, defendants acted with malice or were otherwise motivated by unlawful means. Nor are there any allegations that would support a reasonable inference ofsuch malice or use ofunlawful means. Instead, Tandym merely alleges in conclusory fashion that Herman acted "with malice, or in knowing disregard or indifference to the rights and interests ofTandym" (id 

## ,r,r 80·84). In the absence of any non·conclusory allegations supportingthis material element, Tandym's tortious interference withbusiness relations claim fails to state a plausible claim for relief. Defendants' motion to dismiss the Fourth Cause ofAction is granted and the claim is dismissed. IV. Unfair Competition andMisappropriation ofConfidential Information (Sixth and Seventh Causes ofAction) In New York, to establish a claim for unfair competition, "a plaintiffmust demonstrate that the defendant wrongfully diverted the plaintiffs business to itself' 

### (McKinnon DoxseeAgency, Inc. v Gallina, 187 AD3d 733, 737 [2d Dept 2020]; 

### accordMitzvah Inc. vPower, 106 AD3d 485, 487 [1st Dept 2013] ["The evidence also raises factual issues to support the cause ofaction allegingthat defendants engaged in unfair competition by misappropriatingclient informationplaintiffhad negotiated to purchase from Pisa Brothers, and using it to defendants' commercial advantage"]). Similarly, to establish a claim for misappropriation oftrade secrets or confidential information, a plaintiffmust allege "(I) that it possessed a trade secret, and (2) that the defendants used that trade secret in breach ofan agreement, confidential relationship or duty, or as a result ofdiscovery by improper means" 

### (Schroeder vPinterestInc., 133 AD3d 12, 27 [1st Dept 2015]). Here, Tandym's claims for unfair competition and misappropriation of confidential information are both premisedon the purported "pirating," "misuse,"

655839/2023 TANDYM GROUP, LLC vs. MISSION STAFFING INC. ET AL Motion No. 001 Pages of9



### [* 8]INDEX NO. 655839/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/21/2024

9 of 9 "misappropriation," and/or "disclosure" ofTandym's confidentialinformation 

### (see compl

## ,r,r 98-105, 107·112). Aside from this conclusory assertion, however, the Complaint fails to identify what, ifany, confidential information was purportedly misappropriatedby defendants or defendants effectuated such a misappropriation. Because "the typical questions ofwho, what, when, where, why, and how have not been answered in any manner, shape, or form" by these allegations, dismissal of these two claims is warranted 

### (see InterFysio, LLCv CatherineMay Co-Damm, 2006 WL 8089346, at *1 [Sup Ct, New York County, Aug. 1, 2006]). Defendants' motion to dismiss the Sixth and Seventh Causes ofAction is granted, and the claims are dismissed. *** Before concluding, the court is compelled to make a final point: as defendants note, Tandym's complaint is a near carbon copy ofa separate lawsuit against different defendants pendingbefore the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, captioned 

### Tandym Group, LLCvAtlasSearchLLCetal, Index No. 655837/2023 

### (compare NYSCEF # 8 

### withNYSCEF # 9). This seemingly explains why (1) the Complaint refers to non-existent contractual terms, (2) Tandym's claims are largely unconnected to the defendants it has chosen to sue, and (3) Tandym otherwise fails to provide any requisite details necessary to give adequate notice of its claims to defendants. Put bluntly, the pleadingwas woefully lacking and riddled with inaccuracies and deficiencies abound. 

### Conclusion In view ofthe above, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss (MS00I) is granted; and it is further ORDERED that defendants shall serve a copy ofthis order togetherwith a notice ofentry upon plaintiffand the Clerk ofthe Court within 10 days ofthis order. This constitutes the Decision and Order ofthe court.

08/21/2024 DATE

CHECK ONE;

APPLICATION: CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: CASE DISPOSED GRANTED**□** DENIED SETTLE ORDER INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN

655839/2023 TANDYM GROUP, LLCvs. MISSION STAFFING INC. ET AL Motion No. 001 MARGARET A. CHAN, J.S.C.

NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED IN PART SUBMIT ORDER FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 

# DOTHER 

# DREFERENCE

Page 9of9



### [* 9]