Mattel 2008 Annual Report Download - page 97

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 97 of the 2008 Mattel annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 130

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130

should rule for MGA on equitable affirmative defenses such as laches, waiver and estoppel against Mattel’s
claims. On December 3, 2008, the Court issued a series of orders granting Mattel’s motions, including an order
enjoining the MGA party defendants from manufacturing, marketing or selling certain Bratz fashion dolls or
from using the “Bratz” name. The Court has stayed the effect of the December 3, 2008 orders until further order
of the Court.
Consistent with the Court’s scheduling orders, the parties have filed and argued additional motions for post-
trial relief, including a request by MGA to enter judgment as a matter of law on Mattel’s claims in MGA’s favor
and to reduce the jury’s damages award to Mattel. The additional post-trial motions are currently pending before
the Court.
Litigation Related to Product Recalls and Withdrawals
Product Liability Litigation in the United States
Twenty-two lawsuits have been filed in the United States asserting claims arising out of the
August 2, August 14, September 4, and/or October 25, 2007 voluntary product recalls by Mattel and Fisher-Price,
as well as the withdrawal of red and green toy blood pressure cuffs from retail stores or their replacement at the
request of consumers.
Eighteen of those cases were commenced in the following United States District Courts: ten in the
Central District of California (Mayhew v. Mattel, filed August 7, 2007; White v. Mattel, filed August 16, 2007;
Luttenberger v. Mattel, filed August 23, 2007; Puerzer v. Mattel, filed August 29, 2007; Shah v. Fisher-Price,
filed September 13, 2007; Rusterholtz v. Mattel, filed September 27, 2007; Jimenez v. Mattel, filed
October 12, 2007; Probst v. Mattel, filed November 5, 2007; Entsminger v. Mattel, filed November 9, 2007; and
White v. Mattel, filed November 26, 2007, hereinafter, “White II”); three in the Southern District of New York
(Shoukry v. Fisher-Price, filed August 10, 2007; Goldman v. Fisher-Price, filed August 31, 2007; and
Allen v. Fisher-Price, filed November 16, 2007); two in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Monroe v. Mattel,
filed August 17, 2007, and Chow v. Mattel, filed September 7, 2007); one in the Southern District of Indiana
(Sarjent v. Fisher-Price, filed August 16, 2007); one in the District of South Carolina (Hughey v. Fisher-Price,
filed August 24, 2007); and one in the Eastern District of Louisiana ( Sanders v. Mattel, filed
November 14, 2007). Two other actions originally filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court were removed to
federal court in the Central District of California (Healy v. Mattel, filed August 21, 2007, and Powell v. Mattel,
filed August 20, 2007). Another lawsuit commenced in San Francisco County Superior Court was removed to the
federal court in the Northern District of California (Harrington v. Mattel, filed August 20, 2007). One other
action was commenced in District of Columbia Superior Court and removed to the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia (DiGiacinto v. Mattel, filed August 29, 2007). Mattel was named as a defendant in
all of the actions, while Fisher-Price was named as a defendant in nineteen of the cases.
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL)
On September 5, 2007, Mattel and Fisher-Price filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (“JPML”) asking that all federal actions related to the recalls be coordinated and transferred to the
Central District of California (In re Mattel Inc. Toy Lead Paint Products Liability Litigation). On
December 18, 2007, the JPML issued a transfer order, transferring six actions pending outside the
Central District of California (Sarjent,Shoukry,Goldman,Monroe,Chow and Hughey) to the Central District of
California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with five actions pending in the Central District
(Mayhew,White,Luttenberger,Puerzer and Shah). The remaining cases (Healy,Powell,Rusterholtz,Jiminez,
Probst,Harrington,DiGiacinto,Allen, Sanders, Entsminger, and White II ), so-called “potential tag-along
actions,” are either already pending in the Central District of California or have been transferred there pursuant to
January 3 and January 17, 2008 conditional transfer orders issued by the JPML. These matters are all currently
pending in In re Mattel, Inc. Toy Lead Paint Products Liability Litigation, No. 2:07-ML-01897-DSF-AJW,
MDL 1897 (C. D. Ca.) (the “MDL proceeding”).
93