Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00669/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00669-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

Case No. 3:18-cv-00669-GPC-KSC

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

BULLETS2BANDAGES, LLC, a 

California limited liability company, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

CALIBER CORPORATION, an Illinois 

corporation,

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:18-cv-00669-GPC-KSC

ORDER DENYING 2 MONKEY 

TRADING LLC’S MOTION TO 

VOLUNTARILY DISMISS THIRD 

PARTY COUNTERCLAIMS 

AGAINST CALIBER 

CORPORATION 

[Dkt. No. 79.] 

CALIBER CORPORATION, an Illinois 

Corporation,

Counterclaim-Plaintiff,

v.

BULLETS2BANDAGES, LLC, a 

California limited liability company, 

 Counterclaim-Defendant,

CALIBER CORPORATION, an Illinois 

Corporation,

Third-Party Plaintiff,

v.

LUCKY SHOT USA LLC, a Florida 

Limited Liability Company; and 2 

MONKEY TRADING, LLC, a Florida 

Limited Liability Company,

Third-Party Defendants,

Case 3:18-cv-00669-GPC-MSB Document 102 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of

 10
2

Case No. 3:18-cv-00669-GPC-KSC

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

LUCKY SHOT USA LLC, a Florida 

Limited Liability Company; and 2 

MONKEY TRADING LLC, a Florida 

Limited Liability Company, 

 Third- Party Counterclaim-

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

CALIBER CORPORATION, an Illinois 

Corporation,

 Third Party Counterclaim-

 Defendant.

Before the Court is Third Party Defendant /Third Party Counterclaim Plaintiff 2 

Monkey Trading, LLC (“2 Monkey”)’s motion to voluntarily dismiss its 

Counterclaims, (Dkt. No. 42, Counterclaims ¶¶ 22-66), against Caliber Corporation. 

(Dkt. No. 79.) Third Party Plaintiff/Third Party Counterclaim Defendant Caliber filed 

an opposition. (Dkt. No. 88.) No reply has been filed. Based on the reasoning below, 

the Court DENIES without prejudice 2 Monkey’s motion to voluntarily dismiss its

Third Party Counterclaims. 

Background1

The facts of the case have been recited at length in the Court’s prior order and 

will not be repeated here. (See Dkt. No. 95, Order Granting Motion for Leave to File 

Amended Counterclaims and Third Party Claims.) The Court presents an abbreviated 

version of the facts. 

Plaintiff Bullets2Bandages, LLC (“B2B”) and Defendant Caliber Corporation 

(“Caliber”) are both in the business of selling bullet-shaped bottle openers. In a prior 

case, B2B and Caliber entered into a Settlement Agreement on June 9, 2014, to be 

effective April 7, 2014, where B2B assigned to Caliber all rights to the CALIBER 

 

1 The facts are taken from the Court’s order granting Caliber’s motion for leave to file Amended Counterclaims and 

Third Party claims. (Dkt. No. 95.) 

Case 3:18-cv-00669-GPC-MSB Document 102 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of

 10
3

Case No. 3:18-cv-00669-GPC-KSC

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

Mark, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,364,453, agreed to withdraw its opposition 

to Caliber’s registration of the Bullet Trade Dress2and agreed not to use the phrase 

“the original”3in connection with the sale of bullet-shaped bottle openers. (Dkt. No. 

96, Counterclaim ¶ 23.) In exchange, Caliber agreed to grant B2B a worldwide, 

nonexclusive license to the Bullet Trade Dress and to “B2B’s then-current use of the 

word ‘Caliber’”. (Id. ¶ 23; Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 9.) 

In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, B2B sold its products to 2 

Monkey Trading, LLC (“2 Monkey”) (a/k/a Lucky Shot), a wholesaler. 2 Monkey sells 

B2B’s products through online retailers, Amazon and Etsy. B2B learned that someone 

had complained that 2 Monkey’s products were infringing, and as a result, Amazon 

and Etsy removed 2 Monkey’s listings from their websites, barring it from engaging in 

any sales of B2B’s products. It was later discovered that Caliber complained to 

Amazon and Etsy. The underlying Complaint alleges breach of the Settlement 

Agreement and related claims. 

Meanwhile, Caliber’s Counterclaim and Third-Party Complaint alleges that 

following the execution of the Settlement Agreement, Caliber manufactured large 

caliber bullet-shaped bottle openers for third parties including, 2 Monkey. (Dkt. No. 

41, Counterclaim ¶ 36.) On or after April 7, 2017, Caliber told 2 Monkey that it could 

offer a nonexclusive license to its Bullet Trade Dress. (Id. at ¶ 37.) 2 Monkey then 

ceased purchasing product from Caliber and expressed an interest in obtaining a license 

for sale of products bearing the Bullet Trade Dress. (Id. ¶ 38.) During the remainder 

of 2017, 2 Monkey continued to independently purchase and/or manufacture bulletshaped bottle openers. (Id. ¶ 39.) Around April 2017, 2 Monkey contracted with Triton 

Welding & Machine Shop located in Cocoa, Florida to cut openings in .50 caliber shell 

 

2 On December 23, 2013, B2B filed an opposition to Caliber’s application for registration of the Bullet Trade Dress with 

the USPTO claiming that the mark constituted matter that is functional. (Dkt. No. 41, Counterclaim ¶ 21.)

3 Caiber also owns trademark Registration No. 4,930,487 for the mark, ORIGINAL .50 CALIBER BOTTLE OPENER.

(Dkt. No. 41, Counterclaim ¶ 19.) 

Case 3:18-cv-00669-GPC-MSB Document 102 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of

 10
4

Case No. 3:18-cv-00669-GPC-KSC

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

casings and contracted with Orlando Contract Packaging located in Altamonte Springs, 

Florida to assemble .50 caliber bottle openers. (Id. ¶ 40.) 2 Monkey then de-burred 

and polished the bottle openers, itself, and sold them to others through Lucky Shot. 

(Id.) 2 Monkey knew it needed a license to the Bullet Trade Dress and engaged in 

negotiations with Caliber throughout 2017 and early 2018 regarding a license for the 

sale of large caliber bottle openers. (Id. ¶ 42.) On January 25, 2018, after making a 

requested change by 2 Monkey to the agreement, Caliber believed they had an 

agreement. (Id. ¶ 43.) But 2 Monkey delayed execution of the agreement. (Id. ¶ 44.) 

On February 23, 2018, 2 Monkey told Caliber that it would purchase products from 

B2B instead of Caliber. (Id. 45.) Because Caliber and 2 Monkey did not enter into a 

license agreement, 2 Monkey’s prior sales of bullet-shaped bottle openers since April 

2017 were unlicensed, unauthorized and counterfeit. (Id. ¶ 46.) 

Around February 23, 2018, 2 Monkey entered into a Manufacturing Agreement 

with B2B without Caliber’s knowledge, and on that day, 2 Monkey placed its first order 

of 5,000 .50 caliber bullet-shaped bottle openers and other bullet-shaped bottle openers. 

(Id. ¶ 47.) As a result, Caliber notified Amazon and Etsy on February 23, 2018 that 

Lucky Shot’s then-existing product was infringing its Bullet Trade Dress. (Id. ¶ 48.) 

B2B did not obtain Caliber’s consent to transfer rights to the Bullet Trade Dress or 

CALIBER mark to 2 Monkey or Lucky Shot. (Id. ¶ 49.) Lucky Shot continues to list 

bullet-shaped bottle openers on its own website, Amazon.com and Etsy.com without a 

license from Caliber. (Id. ¶ 50.) Lucky Shot also uses the phrase “the original” without 

a license from Caliber. (Id. ¶ 51.) B2B continues to use the phrase “the original” in 

connection with the sale of bullet-shaped bottle openers without a license from Caliber. 

(Id. ¶ 52.) Amazon and Etsy removed specific listings of Lucky Shot to comply with 

their policies on sale of infringing and/or counterfeit products. (Id. ¶ 53.) On March 

1, 2018, B2B contacted Caliber demanding that the take-down notices be withdrawn 

explaining that all 2 Monkey/Lucky Shot products were being manufactured by B2B 

Case 3:18-cv-00669-GPC-MSB Document 102 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of

 10
5

Case No. 3:18-cv-00669-GPC-KSC

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

as of Monday, February 26, 2018. (Id. ¶ 56.) In response, Caliber sought a copy of the 

Manufacturing Agreement that was heavily redacted but confirmed that B2B and 2 

Monkey/Lucky Shot entered into a sublicense agreement. (Id. ¶ 60.) Moreover, 

invoices related to the production of bottle openers for 2 Monkey were produced 

indicating that B2B subcontracted with Triton Welding & Machine Shop, Inc. and 

Orlando Contract Packaging, the same companies 2 Monkey hired directly to 

manufacture bottle openers from April 2017 to February 2018. (Id. ¶¶ 61-62.) Caliber 

also requested the pricing information in the Manufacturing Agreement and purchase 

documents that verify that B2B is the manufacturer but B2B and 2 Monkey refused. 

(Id. ¶¶ 65, 66.) Therefore, Caliber is unable to determine whether the Lucky Shot 

bullet-shaped bottle openers on Amazon and Etsy are counterfeit, non-infringing or 

produced under the settlement agreement with B2B. (Id. ¶ 67.) 

On January 10, 2019, Caliber filed the Amended Answer, Counterclaims and 

Third-Party Claims. (Dkt. No. 41.) On January 24, 2019, Third Party Defendants filed 

an Answer to the Third-Party Complaint and Counterclaim as well as their Third Party 

Counterclaims against Caliber seeking a declaration that trademark registration no. 

4,630,557 (Bullet Trade Dress) is invalid, cancellation of federal trademark registration 

No. 4,630,557 (Bullet Trade Dress), cancellation of federal trademark registration No. 

4,364,453 (CALIBER mark), and cancellation of federal trademark registration No. 

4,930,487 (ORIGINAL mark). (Dkt. No. 42 at 15-22.) 

The deadline for the completion of fact discovery in this case was May 10, 2019 

and expert discovery deadline was September 13, 2019. (Dkt. No. 35 at 2-3.) 

At the end of discovery, on September 12, 2019, B2B and 2 Monkey entered 

into an Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) where B2B sold all of its business assets 

related to bullet bottle openers, including the subject matter of the Settlement 

Agreement, which is at issue in this case, to 2 Monkey. (Dkt. No. 64-10,Ex. 6 to Ex. 

A.) The APA specifically provides,

Case 3:18-cv-00669-GPC-MSB Document 102 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of

 10
6

Case No. 3:18-cv-00669-GPC-KSC

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

a. B2B hereby assigns, transfers, grants, conveys, and delivers to 2 

Monkey, all of its business assets related to the subject matter of the 

Settlement Agreement free and clear of all debts, security interest, 

liens, charges, or other encumbrances. For example, this includes 

B2B’s bullet bottle opener manufacturing business.

b. The Parties hereby make this assignment retroactively effective as of 

April 7, 2017.

(Id., APA ¶ 1.) 

Due to the APA, on September 13, 2019, 2 Monkey filed a motion to substitute 

it in place of B2B, which was denied on November 1, 2019. (Dkt. Nos. 49, 65.) On 

October 25, 2019, Caliber sought to re-open discovery concerning the execution and 

content of the APA to determine its impact on the instant litigation. (Dkt. No. 59.) In 

its motion, Caliber stated that once discovery is complete, the parties will need to brief 

and argue pre-trial motions related to the APA. (Dkt. No. 57-1 at 12.) On December 

9, 2019, the Magistrate Judge granted Caliber’s motion to reopen discovery solely into 

the APA with discovery to be completed by January 24, 2020. (Dkt. No. 90 at 6.) The 

Magistrate Judge noted that because the APA was executed weeks after the close of 

fact discovery, and the APA creates new legal relationships between the parties with 

respect with the Bullet Trade Dress creating new causes of action, the Magistrate Judge 

found good cause to reopen discovery. (Id. at 6.) 

According to Caliber, the APA complicates the issues in the case because “(1) 

it purports to change the relationship of the parties and affect nearly every aspect of 

this case; (2) it creates new claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition 

against B2B by retroactively removing B2B’s trademark license and granting it to 2 

Monkey; (3) it creates new breach of contract claims against Third-Party Defendants 

by allegedly transferring the license to 2 Monkey; and (4) it creates new interference 

with prospective economic advantage claims against Third-Party Defendants.” (Dkt. 

No. 64-1 at 4.) 

Case 3:18-cv-00669-GPC-MSB Document 102 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of

 10
7

Case No. 3:18-cv-00669-GPC-KSC

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

On December 18, 2019, the Court granted Caliber’s motion for leave to file

Amended Counterclaims and Third-Party Claims. (Dkt. No. 95.) On December 20, 

2019, Caliber filed a Second Amended Answer to Complaint, Counterclaims and 

Third-Party Claims. (Dkt. No. 96.) 2 Monkey and Lucky Shot filed an Answer to 

Second Amended Third Party Complaint and Counterclaim. (Dkt. No. 97.) 

The Court noted that 2 Monkey and Lucky Shot did not re-allege their ThirdParty Counterclaims in their Answer. It was not clear whether 2 Monkey and Lucky 

Shot had dropped the Third-Party Counterclaims against Caliber. Therefore, the Court 

directed them to either withdraw their motion to voluntarily dismiss its Third-Party 

Counterclaims as moot or explain with legal authority whether the Third-Party 

Counterclaims are still operative by January 15, 2020. In response, on January 15, 

2020, 2 Monkey and Lucky Shot filed a motion for leave to file Amended Answer to 

Second Amended Third Party Complaint and Counterclaim to add the mistakenly 

omitted Third Party Counterclaims against Caliber. (Dkt. No. 100.) However, because 

2 Monkey and Lucky Shot failed to obtain a motion hearing date from chambers which 

is in violation of the Local Civil Rules, the Court rejected the document on discrepancy 

on January 16, 2020. (Dkt. No. 101.) To date, 2 Monkey and Lucky Shot have not 

sought to re-file their motion. 

Notwithstanding 2 Monkey and Lucky Shot’s failure to comply with the Court’s 

direction, a counterclaim need not be reasserted when answering the amended 

complaint. See AnTerra Grp. Inc. v. KiVAR Chem. Techs., Case No. SACV 13-734 

JVS(ANx), 2014 WL 12589631, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 23, 2014) (counterclaims were 

not abandoned by failing to reassert them in the answer to the amended complaint). 

“Any amendments to a complaint, and in turn an answer, do not require a counterclaim 

to be reasserted if there are no revisions to it.” Ada Cnty. Highway Dist. v. Rhythm 

Eng’g, LLC, Case No. 15cv584-CWD, 2017 WL 1502791, at *7 (D. Idaho Apr. 25, 

2017) (citing AnTerra Grp. Inc., 2014 WL 12589631, at *3); Williams & Cochrane, 

Case 3:18-cv-00669-GPC-MSB Document 102 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of

 10
8

Case No. 3:18-cv-00669-GPC-KSC

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

LLP v. Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, Case No. 17cv1436-

GPC(MDD), 2018 WL 3970094, at * (S.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2018) (“A plaintiff’s filing 

of an amended complaint does not moot a counterclaim alleged within an answer to the 

original complaint.”). Because the Third Party Counterclaims are still operative, the 

Court considers 2 Monkey’s motion to voluntary dismiss counterclaims challenging 

the validity of the trademarks. (Dkt. No. 79.) Caliber filed an opposition. (Dkt. No. 

88.) 2 Monkey did not file a reply. 

Discussion

2 Monkey argues that it seeks to dismiss the Third Party Counterclaims against 

Caliber which include seeking cancellation of Caliber’s registered bullet trade dress, 

U.S. Registration No. 4,630,557. Because it recently acquired a license to use the 

trade dress as part of the APA which requires that 2 Monkey not seek to cancel the 

trade dress registration, 2 Monkey seeks dismissal in order to prevent violation of the 

licensing agreement. 2 Monkey contends that Caliber will not be prejudiced or 

deprived of any legal claim through the dismissal. 

Caliber opposes arguing it would be extremely prejudicial to allow 2 Monkey 

to dismiss its validity challenges yet continue to assert them through its alter ego 

Lucky Shot. Caliber explains that 2 Monkey and Lucky Shot are commonly owned 

by Doug and Lynne Ingalls and share the same address in Florida. (Dkt. No. Exs. 1, 

2.) In their own pleadings, 2 Monkey and Lucky Shot admitted to the allegations that

“Third Party Defendant Lucky Shot is a Florida limited liability company with its 

principal place of business in Orlando, Florida, and an alter ego of 2 Monkey.” (Dkt. 

No. 41 at 8; Dkt. No. 42 at 2.) To avoid prejudice, Caliber asks that the Court either 

deny 2 Monkey’s motion or grant it on the condition that the same claims are dropped 

for Lucky Shot. 2 Monkey did not respond to this suggestion in a reply. 

Rule 41(a)(2) provides that an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request 

by court order “on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). 

Case 3:18-cv-00669-GPC-MSB Document 102 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of

 10
9

Case No. 3:18-cv-00669-GPC-KSC

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

“This rule applies to dismissal of any counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(c). The decision whether to grant or deny a request pursuant to Rule 

41(a)(2) is within the sound discretion of the trial court and is reviewed only for abuse 

of discretion. Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980). 

Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) should be granted “unless a defendant can show 

that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 

972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Waller v. Fin. Corp. of Am., 828 F.2d 579, 583 (9th

Cir. 1987)). Legal prejudice means “prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, 

[or] some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 

(9th Cir. 1996). “Plain legal prejudice does not result merely because the defendant 

will be inconvenienced by having to defend in another forum or where a plaintiff would 

gain a tactical advantage by that dismissal.” Smith, 263 F.3d at 976 (“need to defend 

against state law claims in state court is not ‘plain legal prejudice’ arising from 

voluntary dismissal of the federal claims in the district court.”). “Plain legal prejudice 

may be shown where actual legal rights are threatened or where monetary or other 

burdens appear to be extreme or unreasonable.” United States v. Berg, 190 F.R.D. 539, 

543 (E.D. Cal. 1999). In other words, as along as the “defendant will not be prejudiced” 

or “unfairly affected by dismissal” a plaintiff may be permitted to dismiss an action. 

Stevedoring Servs. of America v. Armilla Int’l B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1989);

McCants v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 781 F.2d 855, 857 (11th Cir. 1986) (“Rather, the 

district court must exercise its broad equitable discretion under Rule 41(a)(2) to weigh 

the relevant equities and do justice between the parties in each case, imposing such 

costs and attaching such conditions to the dismissal as are deemed appropriate.”).

Here, 2 Monkey seeks dismissal of the trademark validity counterclaims it filed 

against Caliber in order to avoid violating the terms of the Settlement Agreement as 

provided for in the APA. Yet, in the meantime, discovery is being conducted 

concerning the facts surrounding the execution of the APA and its impact on this 

Case 3:18-cv-00669-GPC-MSB Document 102 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of

 10
10

Case No. 3:18-cv-00669-GPC-KSC

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

litigation and the facts are still unfolding. Moreover, dispositive motions concerning 

claims related to the APA or its validity may also be filed. Granting dismissal of 2 

Monkey’s claims at this time is premature. 

Moreover, the Court has concerns that Lucky Shot, a company with the same 

ownership as 2 Monkey, may continue to proceed to challenge the validity of the trade 

dress. While 2 Monkey seeks to avoid a violation of the purported license to the Bullet 

trade dress, it also seeks to challenge the trade dress indirectly through Lucky Shot. 

This raises concerns of unfair prejudice to Caliber. After considering the equities and

possible unfair prejudice to Caliber, at this time, the Court DENIES 2 Monkey’s motion 

to voluntarily dismiss its Third-Party Counterclaims against Caliber. 

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court DENIES without prejudice 2 Monkey’s motion 

for voluntary dismissal of Third-Party Counterclaims asserted against Caliber. The 

hearing set for January 24, 2020 shall be vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 22, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-00669-GPC-MSB Document 102 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 10