OPINION & ORDER Plaintiffs Julie Zanotti and Ronese Brooks1 (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Defendants alleging violations of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (“AIP A”), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), and New York state consumer protection statutes, and stating various common law claims sounding in, inter alia, fraud, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (See Am. Compl. (ECF No. 21).) Plaintiffs originally filed suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County, on or about January 25, 2018. (See Notice of Removal (ECF No. 4).) On July 2 2018, Defendant Intromark Incorporated (“Intromark”) filed a Notice of Removal removing the suit to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §1332(d) (“CAFA”). (Id.) Presently before the Court are (1) Plaintiffs’ motion to remand this case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1447(c), (ECF No. 127), (2) the motion of Defendants Invention Submission Corporation d/b/a InventHelp (“InventHelp”), Technosystems Consolidated Corp., Technosystems Service Corp., Western Invention Submission Corp., Universal Payment Corp., Intromark, and Robert J. Susa (collectively, “InventHelp Defendants”) to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, (ECF No. 136); (3) the motion of Defendant Ashkan Najafi, Esq., to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), (ECF No. 145), and (4) the motion of Rachel Gilboy and RG Patent Consulting LLC (together, the “RG Patent Defendants”) to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), (ECF No. 149). InventHelp Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion to remand. (ECF No. 130). Plaintiffs oppose each of the motions to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 141, 153, 154). For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to remand is DENIED, InventHelp Defendants’ motion to dismiss or transfer venue is GRANTED IN PART, Defendant Najafi’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART, and RG Patent Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART. BACKGROUND2 In 2014, Plaintiff Zanotti, a professional hair stylist, believed she had created a new invention: a hollow comb that could be filled with styling product to evenly distribute the product through the hair by ejecting it through the teeth of the comb. (Am. Compl. 58.) After seeing television commercials advertising the services of Defendant InventHelp, Zanotti contacted InventHelp by phone and gave her contact information to an InventHelp representative. (Id.
59-61.) Zanotti subsequently received a call from Defendant Invents Company and met with a representative of Invents Company named Pamela Mitchell on May 5, 2014, at Invents Company’s New Jersey offices. (Id.
