FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARTER BRYANT, an individual, No. 11-56868

Plaintiff, D.C. No. 2:04-cv-09049-DOC- and RNB

MATTEL, INC., a Delaware corporation; MATTEL DE MEXICO MEMORANDUM *

S.A. DE C.V.,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

and

MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a California corporation; MGA ENTERTAINMENT (HK) LIMITED, a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region business entity; MGAE DE MEXICO, S.R.L. DE C.V., a Mexico business entity; ISAAC LARIAN,

Defendants - Appellees,

v.

CRUM & FORSTER SPECIALTY

INSURANCE COMPANY,

* This disposition isn’t appropriate for publication and isn’t precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36–3. page 2

Intervenor - Appellant,

CARLOS GUSTAVO MACHADO

GOMEZ; OMNI 808 INVESTORS,

LLC; IGWT 826 INVESTMENTS,

LLC,

Defendants,

and

NATIONAL UNION FIRE

INSURANCE COMPANY OF

PITTSBURGH, PA; LEXINGTON

INSURANCE COMPANY; CHARTIS

SPECIALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Intervenors.

CARTER BRYANT, an individual, No. 11-56881

Plaintiff, D.C. No. 2:04-cv-09049-DOC-

RNB

MATTEL, INC., a Delaware corporation; MATTEL DE MEXICO

S.A. DE C.V.,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

and

MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a California corporation; MGA ENTERTAINMENT (HK) LIMITED, a page 3

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region business entity; MGAE DE MEXICO, S.R.L. DE C.V., a Mexico business entity; ISAAC LARIAN,

Defendants - Appellees,

v.

NATIONAL UNION FIRE

INSURANCE COMPANY OF

PITTSBURGH, PA; LEXINGTON

INSURANCE COMPANY; CHARTIS

SPECIALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Intervenors - Appellants,

CARLOS GUSTAVO MACHADO

GOMEZ; OMNI 808 INVESTORS,

LLC; IGWT 826 INVESTMENTS,

LLC,

Defendants,

CRUM & FORSTER SPECIALTY

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Intervenor.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 10, 2012 page 4

Pasadena, California

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, TROTT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it

confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its

control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident

Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam). The district court’s

judgment determined the entire action and included an award of attorneys’ fees.

Mattel’s subsequent notice of appeal divested the district court of its jurisdiction;

the district court thus lacked jurisdiction to entertain appellants’ motion to

intervene. See Nicol v. Gulf Fleet Supply Vessels, Inc., 743 F.2d 298, 299 (5th

Cir. 1984). We therefore affirm the denial of intervention, but do so on the ground

that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain any such motion.

AFFIRMED.