MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Justin Sullivan commenced the above-captioned action on November 18, 2019, against Defendants Aircraft Services Group, Inc. (“ASG”) and Kerry Sailler, (Compl., Docket Entry No. 1), and on March 31, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, alleging that Defendants published false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff in order to interfere with Plaintiff’s contractual and advantageous business relationships, (Am. Compl. 1-2, Docket Entry No. 27). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated section 349 of the New York General Business Law (“GBL §349″) and also asserts claims for libel per se, intentional interference with contract, and intentional interference with advantageous business relations. (Id. at 10-13.) On July 13, 2020, Sailler filed a motion to dismiss the second and third counts of the Amended Complaint, asserting claims for intentional interference with contract and intentional interference with advantageous business relations respectively, (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, Docket Entry No. 33; Defs.’ Mem. in Supp of Mot. to Dismiss, Docket Entry No. 33-3), which ASG joined,1 (ASG Letter dated June 23, 2020, Docket Entry No. 31). On December 2, 2020, ASG requested a premotion conference in anticipation of a motion to dismiss count four of the Amended Complaint, which alleges a claim for violation of GBL §349, (ASG Letter for Premotion Conf. dated Dec. 2, 2020 (“ASG PMC Letter”), Docket Entry No. 39), and Plaintiff opposed, (Pl.’s Opp’n Letter to ASG PMC Letter dated Dec. 10, 2020 (“Pl.’s Opp’n Letter”), Docket Entry No. 40). For the reasons explained below, the Court denies the application. I. Discussion a. Standard of review Rule 12(g)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that “[e]xcept as provided in Rule 12(h)(2) or (3), a party that makes a motion under [Rule 12] must not make another motion under [Rule 12] raising a defense or objection that was available to the party but omitted from its earlier motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2); see also Leyse v. Bank of Am. Nat. Ass’n, 804 F.3d 316, 320-21 (3d Cir. 2015) (holding that a district court erred under Rule 12(g)(2) by allowing a defendant to file successive motion to dismiss raising argument not raised in initial motion to dismiss). Under Rule 12(h)(2), a party may raise a defense based on Rule 12(b)(6) that it omitted from an earlier motion: (1) “in any pleading allowed or ordered under Rule 7(a)”; (2) “by a motion under Rule 12(c)”; or (3) “at trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(2); see also Kramer v. Dane, No. 17-CV-5253, 2018 WL 5077164, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. July 26, 2018) (concluding that a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) was improper where the defendant previously filed a motion to dismiss), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 4489284 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2018); Torres v. UConn Health, No. 17-CV-325, 2018 WL 2926277, at *6 (D. Conn. June 7, 2018) (finding that the defendants “would not be permitted to file a second motion to dismiss” because they “previously filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and the defense asserted in the second motion was available at that time”). b. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is procedurally barred ASG asserts that “even though ASG filed an Answer to [the] Complaint, the Amended Complaint contains new matter, in particular regarding alleged harm to Sullivan and the monetary damages described in [c]ount [four].” (ASG PMC Letter 4 (citing Am. Compl.
