OPINION & ORDER Catherine Kassenoff (“Plaintiff”) brings this lawsuit, pursuant to the Electronics Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”), 18 U.S.C. §§2510, et. seq.; the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. §§2701, et seq.; N.Y. Penal Law §250; and New York common law against Allan Kassenoff (“Mr. Kassenoff”), Constantine G. Dimopoulos (“Dimopoulos”), Dimopoulos Bruggemann PC (“the Firm” and collectively, “Defendants”), alleging unlawful interception, storage, access, and disclosure of Plaintiff’s electronic communications, trespass to chattels and prima facie tort. (See generally Compl. (Dkt. No. 3).) In addition to compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, (see id. at 17), Plaintiff has also requested temporary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2520(b) and 18 U.S.C. §2707(b)), (id. at
66-82).1 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (the “Motion”). (See Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 28).) For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motion is granted. I. Background A. Materials Considered As a threshold matter, the Court determines the proper treatment of pleadings, transcripts, and court orders that Defendants have requested the Court consider in deciding this Motion. (See Defs’ Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. To Dismiss (“Defs’ Mem.”) (Dkt. No. 31); Decl. of Allan Kassenoff, Esq. (“Kassenoff Reply Decl.”) (Dkt. No. 39).) Generally, “[w]hen considering a motion to dismiss, the Court’s review is confined to the pleadings themselves,” because “[t]o go beyond the allegations in the Complaint would convert the Rule 12(b)(6) motion into one for summary judgment pursuant to [Rule] 56.” Thomas v. Westchester Cnty. Health Care Corp., 232 F. Supp. 2d 273, 275 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “Nevertheless, the Court’s consideration of documents attached to, or incorporated by reference in the Complaint, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken, would not convert the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment.” Id.; see also Bellin v. Zucker, 6 F.4th 463, 473 (2d Cir. 2021) (explaining that “when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss,” courts may “consider the complaint in its entirety…, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice” (quotation marks omitted)); Hu v. City of New York, 927 F.3d 81, 88 (2d Cir. 2019) (“In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court may consider ‘only the facts alleged in the pleadings, documents attached as exhibits or incorporated by reference in the pleadings, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken.’” (alteration omitted) (quoting Samuels v. Air Transp. Loc. 504, 992 F.2d 12, 15 (2d Cir. 1993))). As relevant here, the Court may take judicial notice of state court orders, testimony, and other matters of public record. See Johnson v. Pugh, No. 11-CV-385, 2013 WL 3013661, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 18, 2013) (“A court may take judicial notice of matters of public record, including pleadings, testimony, and decisions in prior state court adjudications, on a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).” (citing Rothman v. Gregor, 220 F.3d 81, 92 (2d Cir. 2000))). Thus, the Court will consider the court filings and decisions Defendants have submitted in adjudicating their Motion To Dismiss. B. Factual Background The following facts are taken from the Complaint and the exhibits attached thereto and are assumed to be true for purposes of resolving the instant Motion. See Div. 1181 Amalgamated Transit Union-N.Y. Emps. Pension Fund v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 9 F.4th 91, 94 (2d Cir. 2021) (per curiam). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Plaintiff has owned and used an Apple iPhone with the number (917) 836-5200 (the “iPhone”). (Compl. 10.) Plaintiff transmitted text and email messages from the iPhone, which was password protected. (Id.
