Mattel, Inc. v. Bryant
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
446 F.3d 1011 (2006)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Mattel, Inc. (Mattel) (plaintiff), which was headquartered in California, sued a former employee, Missouri resident Carter Bryant (defendant), in a California state court. The suit was comprised of tort and breach of contract claims relating to Bryant’s creation of the “Bratz” line of dolls. Bryant removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity. MGA Entertainment, Inc. (MGA), a California corporation and the manufacturer of the Bratz dolls, intervened as a defendant pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). Mattel moved to remand the case to state court on the ground that MGA was not diverse and was indispensable to the litigation, because its non-inclusion would subject its interests to a risk of prejudice. MGA and Bryant argued in opposition that MGA was not indispensable, because Mattel could obtain complete relief without MGA’s presence. The district court denied Mattel’s motion. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed to hear Mattel’s interlocutory appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Noonan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
