Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Bratz doll manufacturer MGA Entertainment Inc. is seeking attorney fees plus $177 million in punitive damages after obtaining an $88.5 million verdict against rival Mattel Inc. MGA attorney Annette Hurst, a partner at San Francisco’s Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, moved on May 6 for attorney fees on behalf of the primary firms that handled the litigation for her side: O’Melveny & Myers; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Orrick; and Keller Rackauckas. The latter two firms handled the recent trial. The amount MGA seeks was redacted in publicly available court documents. When asked why, Hurst replied: “The company is a private company and considers its financials to be confidential information.” However, Chief Executive Officer Isaac Larian has publicly estimated his legal fees would amount to about $150 million, according to published reports. A federal jury in Santa Ana, Calif., on April 21 rejected Mattel’s claims that MGA infringed on its copyright after hiring away a designer who took the idea for the Bratz doll with him. The jury found that Mattel, maker of Barbie, did not own the rights to the first four models of the Bratz dolls plus two newer versions. Instead, jurors found that Mattel had stolen MGA’s trade secrets by having its employees spy at industry trade shows. The jurors found for Mattel on one issue: They awarded damages of $10,000 after finding that MGA and Larian intentionally interfered with the contract between Mattel and Bryant. In her fees motion, Hurst wrote that MGA’s demand was “conservative” compared to what the company actually spent. The amount did not include fees for several firms whose “roles were less centrally related” to the company’s defense of the copyright claim, she said. Those firms include Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs Howard Avchen & Shapiro, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp and Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, all of Los Angeles; San Francisco’s Littler Mendelson; Boston’s Bingham McCutchen; Keats McFarland & Wilson in Beverly Hills, Calif.; New York-based Kaye Scholer; and San Francisco’s Keker & Van Nest, which represented the designer, Carter Bryant. “Mattel is a prolific litigant,” Hurst wrote. “Mattel waged war against MGA in this litigation, using every means available to a litigant to multiply the expense, burden and business disruption.” She noted that MGA had produced more than 1 million documents and that Mattel had designated more than 20 experts. She also mentioned that MGA is in litigation with its insurers, some of which have refused to cover all of its legal fees. Hurst’s motion cited a news report estimating Mattel had spent $400 million in six years on the litigation. “If Mattel wants to attack the amount of fees MGA has spent as being unreasonable, then it needs to come clean on what it’s spent,” she said during an interview. As for the punitive damages, MGA attorney Warrington Parker, of counsel at Orrick, said the $177 million represents 7% of Mattel’s net worth. An attached expert declaration estimated Mattel’s net worth at $2.5 billion as of March 31. “Exemplary damages are necessary because Mattel’s actions were reprehensible and breathtaking in scope and duration,” he wrote. In a May 13 reply, Mattel attorney John Quinn said punitive damages would be unjust in this case. “No one died. No towns were lost. MGA suffered no actual injury and did not even claim at trial that it did,” wrote Quinn, name partner of Los Angeles-based Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan. He said MGA was seeking “every cent” that its primary law firms ever billed in the case, which originated in 2004. “This gross overreaching should be rejected.” Quinn did not return a call for comment. Mattel General Counsel Robert Normile has said the company plans to ask U.S. District Judge David Carter to set aside the verdict. Carter ordered that a special master review billing records in the case. He was expected to hear the attorney fees and damages requests on May 24. Amanda Bronstad can be contacted at [email protected] .

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.