Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00296/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00296-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 28:1338tr Trademark Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IMPRIMIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv296 LAB (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO

vs. DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS

OCULAR SCIENCE, INC.,

Defendant.

Defendant and counterclaimant Ocular Science, Inc. on April 6 filed a motion either

to dismiss its second and third counterclaims, or for leave to amend its answer to omit those

two counterclaims. Because Imprimis had already filed an answer to the counterclaims,

Ocular Science could not voluntarily dismiss. The next day, Plaintiff Imprimis

Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to those two claims.

The hearing on both motions is Tuesday, May 30, 2017. Neither motion is opposed.

Imprimis’ motion for partial summary judgment suggests that the reason Imprimis did

not consent to dismissal is because it wanted the claims dismissed with prejudice, and

because it wanted the right to seek an award of fees. Ocular Science, however, concedes

the two counterclaims are compulsory. That means the effect of Ocular Science’s dismissal

of the two claims, even though without prejudice, will be that Ocular Science cannot raise

these same claims in any later action. See Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co., 966 F.2d 1318, 1320

/ / /

- 1 - 16cv296

Case 3:16-cv-00296-LAB-WVG Document 37 Filed 05/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(9th Cir.1992). And Imprimis has not identified any statute or other provision that would 1

entitle it to a fee award. 

Because Ocular Science has made clear that it does not intend to pursue its second

and third counterclaims, and because Imprimis agrees they should be dismissed, Ocular

Science’s motion to dismiss its claims is GRANTED. Ocular Science should promptly file an

amended answer, omitting the second and third counterclaims. B e c a u s e O c u l a r

Science’s two counterclaims are being dismissed and will not be raised in future litigation, the

motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED AS MOOT. 

The hearing on these two motions is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 25, 2017

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Ocular Science’s brief suggests the possibility that it might pursue them in some

1

other proceeding, if Imprimis’ allegedly anticompetitive behavior continues or escalates. 

Claims that have not yet accrued are obviously not being dismissed, so claims arising out

of Imprimis’ future behavior would not be precluded in future actions. But by representing

that the two counterclaims were compulsory, and by not opposing the motion for partial

summary judgment, Ocular Science consented to dismissal of these two counterclaims, see

Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c), and in effect has abandoned them.

- 2 - 16cv296

Case 3:16-cv-00296-LAB-WVG Document 37 Filed 05/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2