Legal News

Judge Denies Mistrial: ?At Stake Here is Property ? A Lot of Property?

By Dan Slater

The doll fight out in Cali will continue to the damages phase. MGA’s motion for a mistrial: Denied.

As noted, MGA, maker of the Bratz line of dolls, moved for a mistrial on July 25 when the jury reported to U.S. District Judge Stephen Larson that one of its members, identified as Juror #8, had told other panel members that her attorney-husband had worked with Iranians and found they were “stubborn, rude, stingy, are thieves and have stolen other person’s ideas,” according to court papers. (MGA’s CEO, Isaac Larian, is an Iranian-Jewish immigrant. He said the verdict had been based on racism.)

The juror had been part of the panel that decided that early sketches of the pouty-lipped Bratz doll, which had been produced by MGA, were actually the property of Mattel. Mattel had argued that Carter Bryant, the designer who sold the Bratz idea to MGA, dreamed up the doll while still under contract with Mattel. The jury found MGA and Larian liable for “intentional interference” with Bryant’s contract, adding that Larian had “aided and abetted” Carter’s breach of loyalty to the company.

According to the AP, Judge Larson said he was deeply disturbed by the remark but felt that dismissing the juror was a sufficient remedy because the remaining nine jurors seemed unbiased and had openly discussed the remark with the judge. “If only every jury in this country reacted to racism or bigotry the way this jury did . . . we would have a much better jury system,” Larson said. (Here are more reports from the WSJ and the LAT.)

MGA’s lead attorney, Tom Nolan, said the company will appeal to the Ninth Circuit. “We believe we’re entitled to a unanimous verdict of 10 impartial jurors,” he said.

Finally, we’re not sure how the following statement by Judge Larson, quoted in the AP report, fits into context, but we find it compelling nonetheless. He reportedly said: “At stake here is property — a lot of property. At two o’clock, I’ll be taking cases where people’s life and liberty are at stake. That’s not the case here. And there is a difference.”

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on August 05, 2008 (boomark / email).