Imprimis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Ocular Science, Inc. et al

Filing 37

ORDER Granting Leave to Dismiss Counterclaims. Ocular Science's 31 Motion to Dismiss its claims is granted. Ocular Science should promptly file an amended answer, omitting the second and third counterclaims. Because Ocular Science's two counterclaims are being dismissed and will not be raised in future litigation, the 34 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied as moot. The hearing on these two motions scheduled for 5/30/2017 is vacated. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 5/25/2017. (lrf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

IMPRIMIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

12

CASE NO. 16cv296 LAB (WVG)

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO
DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS

vs.
13

OCULAR SCIENCE, INC.,

14

Defendant.

15
16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

///
-1-

16cv296

1
2

(9th Cir.1992).1 And Imprimis has not identified any statute or other provision that would
entitle it to a fee award.

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

amended answer, omitting the second and third counterclaims.

7

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

8

motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED AS MOOT.

9

Because Ocular

The hearing on these two motions is VACATED.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 25, 2017

13
14

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

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