OPINION AND ORDER
*1 This Opinion is yet another installment in a sprawling, multi-party dispute over the intellectual property rights associated with Marilyn Monroe, one of the 20th century’s most iconic figures. It is also the latest in what is now a trilogy of decisions that this Court has issued adjudicating the parties’ motions to dismiss.In A.V.E.L.A., Inc. v. Estate of Marilyn Monroe, LLC, 131 F. Supp. 3d 196 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (“AVELA I”), this Court granted in part and denied in part the motions of X One X Movie Archives Inc. (“X One X”) and V. International Fine Arts Publishing, Inc. (“V. International” and together with X One X, the “Counter-Plaintiffs”) to dismiss the First Amended Counterclaim of the Estate of Marilyn Monroe, LLC (“Monroe Estate”). After the Court issued AVELA I, Counter-Plaintiffs filed answers to the First Amended Counterclaim. They also brought claims of their own against the Monroe Estate, Authentic Brands Group LLC (“ABG”), James Salter (“Salter,” and together with the Monroe Estate and ABG, the “Estate Movants”), and Leonard Green & Partners, L.P. (“LGP”).The Estate Movants and LPG then moved to dismiss X One X’s and V. International’s counterclaims. In A.V.E.L.A., Inc. v. Estate of Marilyn Monroe, LLC, 241 F. Supp. 3d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (“AVELA II”), the Court dismissed without prejudice Counter-Plaintiffs’ claims for (i) fraud on the United States Patent and Trade Office, (ii) attempted monopolization, (iii) violations of New York General Business Law §349 (“Section 349″), (iv) tortious interference with