CARTER BRYANT V. MATTEL INC., No. 11-56868 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARTER BRYANT, an individual, Plaintiff, and MATTEL, INC., a Delaware corporation; MATTEL DE MEXICO S.A. DE C.V., No. 11-56868 D.C. No. 2:04-cv-09049-DOCRNB MEMORANDUM * 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, Plaintiff, 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 No. 11-56881 D.C. No. 2:04-cv-09049-DOCRNB 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.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
