Mattel, Inc. v. Carter Bryant, an Individual Mga Entertainment, Inc.

Good Law
446 F.3d 1011·2006 WL 1149186·24 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 787·2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 10884
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 2, 200605-55696California903 words

Opinion

Opinion

Noonan, J.

Mattel, Inc., a Delaware corporation with headquarters in California, appeals the order of the district court denying Mattel’s motion to remand this action to state court in which Mattel had begun this suit against Carter Bryant, a resident of Missouri and a product designer formerly in its employ. Holding that diversity jurisdiction is not defeated by the intervention of MGA Entertainment, Inc., a California corporation not an indispensable party, we conclude that the district court properly retained jurisdiction.

PROCEEDINGS

On April 27, 2004, Mattel filed a complaint against Bryant in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging breach of contract and various torts. On May 14, 2004, Bryant removed the case to federal court, but the court held that the monetary requirement for diversity jurisdiction had not been satisfied. After discovery, Bryant again removed the case, and Mattel again moved to remand. On December 7, 2004, MGA Entertainment, Inc. (MGA) intervened as a defendant to protect its rights to Bratz dolls. On March 4, 2005, the district court held that diversity jurisdiction existed. Mattel was a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Califor nia, Bryant was a…

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.