MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
TERRENCE F. McVERRY, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is the MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 9) filed by Defendants Johnathon Brooks Davis and Jacqueline Davis with brief in support (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff Corporate Air, LLC filed a brief in opposition (ECF No. 11); Defendants filed a reply brief (ECF No. 12). Accordingly, the motion is ripe for disposition.
The following background is drawn from the Complaint, and the factual allegations therein are accepted as true for the purpose of this Memorandum Opinion. As the law requires, all disputed facts and inferences are resolved in favor of Plaintiff, the non-moving party.
A. Factual Background
Corporate Air provides aircraft management, charter sales and acquisition services for aircraft with a registered address at the Allegheny County Airport. Davis Air, Inc. ("Davis Air") is a North Carolina Corporation owned and operated, in part, by Gary Davis and/or his affiliates in South Carolina, servicing customers from a hangar in the Charleston Airport Facility. Defendants are allegedly affiliates, employees, agents, board members, and/or owners of Davis Air, as well as the son and wife of Gary Davis. Both Defendants reside in Charleston, South Carolina.
Davis Air was formerly a member of Corporate Air, then-known as United Air Group, LLC. The initial members of that entity entered into an Operating Agreement on August 23, 1999 which was amended over the years. Among those amendments, Corporate Air and Davis Air entered into a Redemption and Settlement Agreement (the "Redemption Agreement") on August 6, 2010 in which Corporate Air purchased all of Davis Air's ownership interest in Corporate Air. The closing for the Redemption Agreement occurred on November 19, 2010.
Pursuant to the terms of the Redemption Agreement, Corporate Air agreed to pay Davis Air certain sums and to sublease from Davis Air the entire Charleston, South Carolina Airport for three years following the date of closing. Corporate Air also agreed to enter into Employment Agreements with Defendants as part of the Redemption Agreement for them to perform managerial, development, and sales services during the sublease.
The Employment Agreements include a provision by which Defendants agree to honor Section 4.1 of the Company's Operating Agreement. See ECF Nos. 1-2 & 1-3 (Employment Agreements of Defendants); ECF No. 9-1 (Operating Agreement of United Air Group LLC). Section 4.1 sets forth restrictive covenants regarding non-competition, non-solicitation, protection of confidential information and a right of first refusal to Corporate Air for new opportunities within the aviation field. Plaintiffs allege that Davis Air was competing with Corporate Air no later than March 6, 2012 in breach of Defendants' Employment Agreements by providing charter jet services. This lawsuit followed.
B. Procedural History
Plaintiff initiated this action on May 24, 2013 by filing a one-count Complaint for breach of contract. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 29, 2013, relying on Rule 12(b)(3) and Rule 12(b)(6). Defendants submit that dismissal for improper venue is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(3), arguing that a forum selection clause in the Employment Agreements mandates that the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County hear this case. Defendants also contend that dismissal is warranted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) because Plaintiff has agreed to arbitrate any dispute, the Complaint fails to establish any breach, and the Employment Agreement precludes the relief sought. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the motions to dismiss the Complaint
II. Standard of Review
A. Rule 12(b)(3)
A Rule 12(b)(3) motion seeks dismissal due to improper venue. The Supreme Court of the United States very recently provided guidance regarding the interplay between this rule, forum selection clauses, and the federal venue statutes. See Atl. Marine Const. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Texas, 12-929, 2013 WL 6231157 (U.S. Dec. 3, 2013) (slip opinion).
In Atlantic Marine Construction Company, a unanimous Court rejected the contention that a party may enforce a forum-selection clause by seeking dismissal of the suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and Rule 12(b)(3). Id. at *6. As the Court stated, "§ 1406(a) and Rule 12(b)(3) allow dismissal only when venue is wrong' or improper'" which "depends exclusively on whether the court in which the case was brought satisfies the requirements of federal venue laws, and those provisions say nothing about a forum-selection clause." Id. A district court must instead determine whether the case falls within one of the three categories set forth in § 1391(b) when venue is challenged. Id. To be sure, "[w]hether the parties entered into a contract containing a forum-selection clause has no bearing on whether a case falls into one of the categories of cases listed in § 1391(b)." Id.
The Supreme Court's ruling does not, however, leave a party without redress to enforce a valid forum selection clause. Id. at *9. When it points to a particular federal district, the clause may be enforced through a motion to transfer under § 1404(a). Id. at *9. "For the remaining set of cases calling for a nonfederal forum, § 1404(a) has no application, but the residual doctrine of forum non conveniens has continuing application in federal courts." Id. at *10 (citation omitted). Accordingly, "because both § 1404(a) and the forum non conveniens doctrine from which it derives entail the same balancing-of-interests standard, courts should evaluate a ...