OPINION & ORDER Plaintiffs Sherrance Henderson (“Plaintiff Henderson”) and Cornucopia Queen, Inc. (“Plaintiff Cornucopia”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), bring this action against Defendant Golden Corral Franchising Systems, Inc. (“Golden Corral,” or “Defendant”), alleging violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent inducement and fraudulent omission, and punitive damages, stemming from Plaintiffs’ endeavors to open and operate a Golden Corral restaurant franchise in Poughkeepsie, New York. Before the Court is Golden Corral’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 69), which Plaintiffs opposed (ECF No. 75). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS in PART and DENIES in PART Golden Corral’s motion to dismiss. Specifically, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff Henderson’s claims for violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent inducement and fraudulent omission, and punitive damages, which are dismissed for lack of standing. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is also GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff Cornucopia’s claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraudulent inducement and fraudulent omission, which are dismissed for failure to state plausible claims upon which relief could be granted. However, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff Cornucopia’s claims for violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981 and punitive damages. BACKGROUND The facts herein are mainly drawn from Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) (ECF No. 64). The Court “accepts all well-pleaded facts in the Complaint and Supplemental Pleading as true for the purpose of ruling on a motion to dismiss.” Jackson v. NYS Dep’t of Labor, 709 F.Supp.2d 218, 222 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). I. Factual Allegations Plaintiff Cornucopia is an African American, woman, and disabled-owned corporation, incorporated in New York and with its principal place of business in New York, New York. (SAC 3.) Plaintiff Henderson is a disabled African American woman. (Id. 4.) A. Franchise Agreement On or about March of 2013, Golden Corral presented Plaintiff Henderson with a written Franchise Disclosure Document (“FDD” or “Franchise Agreement”). (SAC 18.) Plaintiff alleges that at this time, the Vice President of Franchise Sales (who is never named in the SAC) asked Plaintiff Henderson whether she was married and/or had children. (Id. 20.) He also instructed her to find two other people, preferably men with restaurant experience, to share her franchise license on the basis that Plaintiff Henderson could not help to manage the business because of her disability and her background as “a woman who [] never operated a business of this type.” (Id.
20, 22.) Plaintiff Henderson further claims that, because of the Vice President of Franchise Sale’s instruction, she issued Darren “Chip” Joyner (“Joyner”) and Milton A. Dewar (“Dewar”) five percent (5 percent) each of her Golden Corral franchise license, retaining ninety percent (90 percent) ownership. (Id. 21.) B. Allegations of Discrimination Prior to Cornucopia Queen Assignment After Golden Corral’s sales pitch,1 Plaintiff Henderson alleges that she acquired a Golden Corral franchise license in reliance on Golden Corral’s conduct and statements pertaining to the opening of a Golden Corral franchise in Newark, New Jersey that would serve a predominantly African American community.2 (Id. 23.) However, Plaintiff was subsequently told that the Newark location was being removed from the “approved area list.” (Id. 31.) When Plaintiff Henderson found a comparable in-line location on Golden Corral’s approved area list, as Golden Corral purportedly directed, Senior Vice President of Franchising Irwin Roberts (“Roberts”) told Plaintiff Henderson that she did not have the ability to manage an in-line store in a strip mall because she was a new franchisee. (Id.
