MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Mountain Candy & Cigar Co., Inc. (“Mountain Candy” or “plaintiff”) brought this action against defendant Plainfield Tobacco and Candy Co., Inc., doing business as Resnick Distributors (“Resnick” or “defendant”) by filing a complaint on April 10, 2019, alleging violations of New York’s tax laws regulating the sale of cigarettes. (ECF No. 1, Compl. 1.)1 Prior to the commencement of this action, plaintiff, along with Amsterdam Tobacco Co., Inc. (“Amsterdam”), Donohue Candy and Tobacco Co., Inc. (“Donohue”), Kingston Candy & Tobacco Co., Inc. (“Kingston”), and Sunrise Candy & Tobacco Corp. (“Sunrise” and collectively with plaintiff, Amsterdam, Donohue, and Kingston, the “original plaintiffs”), all licensed cigarette distributors based in New York, brought a related action in Kings County Supreme Court on February 6, 2018, against Harold Levinson Associates, LLC (“HLA”), McLane Eastern, Inc., McLane Midwest, Inc., (together with McLane Eastern, “McLane”), defendant Resnick, Consumer Product Distributors, Inc., doing business as J. Polep Distribution Services (“Polep”), and Core-Mark Midcontinent, Inc. (“Core-Mark”, and together with defendant Resnick and Polep, the “original defendants”) alleging similar violations of New York’s tax laws regulating cigarette sales. See Amsterdam Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Core-Mark Midcontinent, Inc., No. 18-CV-1432(KAM)(VMS), 2019 WL 4696282, slip op. (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2019); (ECF No. 13-1, Def.’s Mem. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss (“Def.’s Mot.”), 6 n.1.) McLane removed that action, which was assigned docket number 18-CV-1432, to this court on March 8, 2018, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1332, 1441, and 1446(a). See Amsterdam Tobacco, No. 18-CV-1432, (ECF No. 1, Not. of Removal). In the removed action, 18-CV-1432, the parties agreed to sever and remand all claims against HLA, a citizen of New York. See id., (ECF No. 20, Stip. re: Remand); (ECF No. 34, Order dated 5/31/2018). The parties then agreed to dismiss all claims against McLane and certain claims against each remaining defendant. The original plaintiffs subsequently filed three amended complaints, one against each remaining defendant, Core-Mark, Resnick, and Polep. See id., (ECF Nos. 36-38, Am. Compls.); (ECF No. 39, Not. Of Dismissal); (ECF No. 40, Stip. re: Severance). The original defendants have, respectively, moved to dismiss the amended complaints for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See generally id., (ECF Nos. 41-51). The original plaintiffs and the original defendants soon sought to sever this case into three separate actions, each based on the three amended complaints, and the court ordered the original plaintiffs to open two new cases and file their respective amended complaints as an initiating pleading in their respective new cases (assigned docket numbers 19-CV-2079 and 19-CV-2080), along with specific notices of dismissal in the original action. See id., (Order dated 04/03/2019). Plaintiff complied with the court’s order and on May 1, 2019, the court dismissed without prejudice Mountain Candy’s claims against Resnick in the original action, leaving only Amsterdam’s, Donohue’s, and Mountain Candy’s claims against Core-Mark in that action. See id., (Order dated 05/01/2019). In the Complaint in the instant action, plaintiff alleges defendant Resnick systematically violated New York tax law by selling cigarettes to New York retailers at prices below the statutory minimum price set by the New York Cigarette Marketing Standards Act (“CMSA”), N.Y. Tax Law §483, et seq. (Compl.
1-2.) Resnick now moves this court to dismiss plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (“Rule 12(b)(6)”) for failure to state a claim. (See ECF No. 13, Mot. to Dismiss; ECF No. 14, Pl.’s Opp. (“Opp.”); ECF No. 16, Def.’s Reply (“Reply”).) For the reasons discussed below, the court DENIES defendant’s motion and finds that plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded a violation of the CMSA by Resnick. BACKGROUND The following facts are drawn exclusively from plaintiff’s Complaint, which the court presumes to be true for purposes of analyzing defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion. See Glob. Network Commc’ns, Inc. v. City of New York, 458 F.3d 150, 154 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing Allaire Corp. v. Okumus, 433 F.3d 248, 249-50 (2d Cir. 2006)) (on a 12(b)(6) “motion, we are constrained to accept as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint and draw all inferences in plaintiff’s favor.”) Plaintiff is a New York corporation and cigarette wholesale dealer (or “wholesaler”), and a licensed stamping agent. (Compl.
