Pursuant to this assignment, Hawthorne brought the underlying suit alleging breach of contract, and in the alternative, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment.

Dismissal of the complaint is warranted “if the plaintiff fails to assert facts in support of an element of the claim, or if the factual allegations and inferences to be drawn from them do not allow for an enforceable right of recovery.” Connaughton v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc, 29 N.Y.3d 137, 142 (2017).

JDS argues that Section 11.4 of the Services Agreement provides further support to the contention that the no-assignments clause was meant to make subsequent assignments void.

On the standard for a motion to dismiss, giving Hawthorne every favorable inference, this provision cannot be said to conclusively show that ExcelAire gave up its power to assign under the Services Agreement.

Because the non-assignment clause has not voided the assignment of the right to collect the outstanding amount from ExcelAire to Hawthorne, the cause of action for unjust enrichment has adequately pled a claim.

None of Defendants’ attempts to defend those decisions is remotely persuasive.

None of that can be reconciled with the purpose of Chapter 15, principles of comity, the presumption against extraterritoriality, or common sense.

None of Defendants’ counterarguments is remotely persuasive.

In this action seeking, inter alia, damages for tortious interference with prospective business relations, the plaintiff moves to seal Exhibits 1 and 3-26 (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 30, 32- 55) to the affirmation of David A. Paul in opposition to the defendant’s pending motion to dismiss (MOT SEQ 001), and to redact the plaintiff’s memorandum of law in opposition to said motion (NYSCEF Doc. No. 56).

The plaintiff has demonstrated that most of the subject exhibits it seeks to seal are: filings or exhibits from a prior confidential FINRA arbitration (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 30, 32-37); documents and communications regarding the plaintiff’s business relationships with its clients, the disclosure of which could impinge on the privacy rights of third parties who are not litigants herein (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 38-42, 49-53); or confidential employment agreements with former employees of the plaintiff (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 43-48).

The motion is denied as to the remaining two exhibits (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 54-55), which concern the termination of a client relationship but do not disclose any sensitive or proprietary information.

In determining whether good cause has been shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as of the parties.” “[P]ublic access to court proceedings is strongly favored, both as a matter of constitutional law (Richmond Newspapers v Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 [1980]) and as a statutory imperative (Judiciary Law § 4).” Anonymous v Anonymous, 158 AD2d 296, 297 (1st Dept.

Accordingly, upon the foregoing documents, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to seal is granted, upon a finding of “good cause” as to NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 30 and 32-53, and the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further ORDERED that service upon the Clerk of the Court of this order shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the “E-Filing” page on the court’s website); and it is further.

Defendant.

The parties are directed to review the Court’s Individual Rules to ensure compliance of any related declarations and exhibits.

Plaintiffs shall file a memorandum of law, not to exceed 25 pages, by October 9, 2024.

Defendant shall file a memorandum of law in opposition, not to exceed 25 pages, by November 6, 2024.

Plaintiffs shall file a reply memorandum of law, not to exceed 10 pages, by November 19, 2024.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at Dkts.