MGA Entertainment Inc v. Mattel Inc et al

Filing 26

NOTICE filed by Defendant Mattel Inc. Mattel, Inc.'s and Robert A. Eckert's Notice of Finality (Proctor, Brett)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
John B. Quinn (Bar No. 090378)
2
([e-mail])
Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417)
3
([e-mail])
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
4
Los Angeles, California 90017-2543
5 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
6
7 Attorneys for Mattel, Inc. and
Robert A. Eckert
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SOUTHERN DIVISION

11

12 MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
13
14

CASE NO. CV 11-01063

Plaintiff,
vs.

Hon. David O. Carter

15
MATTEL, INC. and ROBERT A.
16 ECKERT,
17
Defendants.
18
19

MATTEL, INC.’S AND ROBERT A.
ECKERT’S NOTICE OF FINALITY
Hearing Date: October 11, 2011
Time:
8:30 a.m.
Place:
Courtroom 9D

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. CV 11-01063
MATTEL’S NOTICE OF FINALITY

1

Defendants Mattel, Inc. and Robert A. Eckert (“Mattel”) file this Notice of

2 Finality to address the impact of the Court’s August 4, 2011 Judgment in Case No.
3 04-9049 (Dkt. No. 10704) on Mattel’s pending Motion to Dismiss the Complaint of
4 MGA Entertainment Inc. (“MGA”) (Case No. 11-1063, Dkt. No. 11).
5

The Court’s August 4, 2011 Judgment was rendered on the merits and,

6 notwithstanding any appeal, constitutes a “final” disposition of Case No. 04-9049
7 for res judicata purposes. See Tripati v. Henman, 857 F.2d 1366, 1367 (9th Cir.
8 1988) (“The established rule in the federal courts is that a final judgment retains all
9 of its res judicata consequences pending decision of the appeal.” (internal quotation
10 marks omitted)); see also Arthur R. Wright et al., Fed. Practice and Proc. Civ. §
11 4432 (2d ed. 2002). Because final judgment has been entered in Case No. 04-9049,
12 the doctrine of claim preclusion now governs Mattel’s contention, in its pending
13 motion to dismiss, that MGA’s claims here in Case No. 11-1063 are barred because
14 they arose from the same cause of action as MGA’s claims in the prior Case No. 0415 9049. See Adams v. Cal. Dept. of Health Serv., 487 F.3d 684, 688-89 (9th Cir.
16 2007) (applying claim-splitting doctrine prior to entry of final judgment); Tahoe17 Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 322 F.3d
18 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003) (applying claim preclusion doctrine after entry of final
19 judgment).
20

Res judicata applies for the reasons Mattel explained previously in arguing

21 that claim-splitting applies and that MGA’s claims here were compulsory
22 counterclaims in Case No. 04-9049. See Adams, 487 F.3d at 688 (explaining that
23 the test for claim-splitting is based on the test for claim preclusion).
24

Because res judicata now applies, dismissal of this action is required. See

25 Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399 (1981) (case must be
26 dismissed where elements of claim preclusion are satisfied); Mitchell v. CB Richard
27 Ellis Long Term Disability Plan, 611 F.3d 1192, 1201 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[W]here a
28
-1-

Case No. CV 11-01063
MATTEL’S NOTICE OF FINALITY

1 party has failed to plead a compulsory counterclaim, the claim is waived and the
2 party is precluded by principles of res judicata from raising it again.”).
3
4
5

DATED: September12, 2011

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

6
7
8
9

By /s/ Michael T. Zeller
Michael T. Zeller
Attorneys for Mattel, Inc. and
Robert A. Eckert

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

Case No. CV 11-01063
MATTEL’S NOTICE OF FINALITY