MGA Entertainment Inc v. Mattel Inc et al

Filing 27

REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF FINALITY filed by Plaintiff MGA Entertainment Inc. (Blecher, Maxwell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

BLECHER & COLLINS, P.C.
Maxwell M. Blecher (State Bar No. 26202)
[e-mail]
Maryann R. Marzano (State Bar No. 96867)
[e-mail]
Courtney A. Palko (State Bar No. 233622)
[e-mail]
515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1750
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SOUTHERN DIVISION

12
13

MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

vs.
MATTEL, INC. and ROBERT A.
ECKERT,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CV 11-01063 DOC (RNBx)
PLAINTIFF MGA
ENTERTAINMENT, INC.’S
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
NOTICE OF FINALITY
Hon. David O. Carter
Courtroom 9D
Hearing: October 11, 2011
Time:
8:30 a.m.

The August 4, 2011 Judgment operates as res judicata only if the elements of

1

2 the claim preclusion exist independent of the Judgment. Because they do not, the
3 Judgment in this case has no legal significance. See The Haytian Republic, 154 U.S.
4 118, 124, 14 S. Ct. 992, 993 (1894).

As Plaintiff MGA observed in its Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to

5

6 Dismiss, filed on April 25, 2011, there is no “splitting” or “claim preclusion” here
7 because:

• This antitrust case arose and is based on facts that have accumulated after the

8

9 first action “and it is, therefore, a ‘new claim’ … not barred by res judicata.” Storey
10 v. Cello Holdings, L.L.C., 347 F.3d 370, 383-84 (2d Cir. 2003); Adams v. California
11 Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 693 (9th Cir. 2007); Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226
12 F.3d 133, 139-40 (2d Cir. 2000) (reversing district court’s dismissal of claims in the
13 second action arising out of events occurring subsequent to the filing of the complaint
14 in the first action);

• This antitrust suit is not “virtually identical” with or duplicative of the

15

16 original case. Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70-71 (3d Cir. 1977) cited with
17 approval in Adams, 487 F.3d at 688, and Russ v. Standard Ins. Co., 120 F.3d 988, 990
18 (9th Cir. 1997), in that this case requires proof of eight separate elements different
19 from the elements/evidence adduced in the original case.

• MGA’s antitrust case is not a compulsory counterclaim: Hydranautics v.

20

21 FilmTec Corp., 70 F.3d 533, 536-37 (9th Cir. 1995).

For these reasons, there is no claim splitting or claim preclusion that invokes

22

23 res judicata. Accordingly, because the Judgment does independently provide a basis
24 for res judicata it should not affect the decision in this case.
25 Dated: September 23, 2011

BLECHER & COLLINS, P.C.

26
27

By:

/s/ Maxwell M. Blecher
Maxwell M. Blecher
Attorneys for MGA Entertainment, Inc.

28
48078

1