Bryant

Mattel, Inc. v. Bryant

Good Law
441 F. Supp. 2d 1081·2005 WL 4541918·2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3568
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaMarch 4, 2005CV 04-9059 NM (RNBX)California8,912 words

Opinion

Opinion

Manella, J.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF MATTEL, INC.’S MOTION TO REMAND AND CERTIFYING QUESTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 27, 2004, Mattel, Inc. (“Mattel”), the world’s largest manufacturer and marketer of toys, dolls, games, and stuffed toys and animals, filed the instant Complaint against its former employee, Carter Bryant (“Bryant”), in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. The Complaint fails to state the amount in controversy and asserts generically-phrased causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) breach of duty of loyalty; (4) unjust enrichment; and (5) conversion. On May 14, 2004, Bryant filed a Notice of Removal. On August 20, 2004, the court granted Mattel’s motion to remand, finding that Bryant had failed to demonstrate the presence of either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. On November 2, 2004, Bryant filed a second Notice of Removal. On December 7, 2004, MGA Entertainment (“MGA”), pursuant to stipulation and order, intervened as a defendant. Pending before the court is Mattel’s Motion to Remand.

II. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Allegations in Mattel’s Complaint Mattel employed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.