Barbie-Bratz Juror Booted for Ethnic Slurs; MGA Asks for Mistrial
It’s been a nasty doll fight out there in California, and the ugliness ain’t over. The Journal’s Nick Casey reports that Judge Stephen Larson, now presiding over the damages phase of the Barbie-Bratz suit, dismissed a juror today for making ethnic slurs about MGA’s CEO Isaac Larian, a Jewish immigrant from Iran who has testified extensively during the trial. Here’s a copy of his order.
The juror was part of the panel that last week decided that early sketches of the Bratz doll, which had been produced by MGA, were actually the property of rival Mattel, maker of Barbie. 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” his breach of loyalty to the company.
Both companies said the matter arose after a juror informed Judge Larson that a fellow juror had made the slurs during deliberations that led to last week’s verdict. The jurors were in court Friday, after beginning consideration earlier this week of the second phase of the trial to set damages.
After the juror was dismissed, an MGA lawyer said the company asked the judge for a mistrial. The motion will be heard on August 4, according to MGA.
MGA has been repped by Skadden’s Tom Nolan, while Quinn Emanuel’s John Quinn has repped Mattel.
Mahzaltoff!
God always fights for right. The truth shall set you free….
The fact that it’s just one juror shouldn’t matter. An essential element of trial by jury is the deliberative process of the jury. That can be corrupted by the presence of even one juror who is incapable of deliberating in good faith. MGA should get a new trial.
.
What? The verdict should stand with a prejudice element in the jury? Are these people for real or put here on earth by some demon for fun. They are truly the most disgusting corporate people alive, I feel sorry for normal humans that work there.
what kind of jury is this? Would YOU want to let a verdict stand that could take your life’s work away decided by a jury that had a person in it that HATES background you come from? How much influence did this hate spewer have over the others? I have seen plenty of people influenced by loud mouth jerks, and this one was just bubbling over with hate wasn’t she? There is NO question to me this is over and needs to start again.
Obviously, lots of the comments so far are from Skadden interns who don’t have their facts straight. It was a single juror who made the remarks, not the entire jury as the posters imply.
So you would be fine with your company on the line knowing one of those jurors hated you for your ethnic background? You would be okay knowing you could lose all of it to a jury tainted with a racist that hated you and had already decided you werew in the wrong YEAH RIGHT
Stop being a fool
Nice invective from “you are a liar.” Very persuasive too. I can only hope your logic (and grammar) skills improve once you complete your intern training program there at Skadden.
I deal with Iranians all of the time, and have found them to be cheats, liars, and thieves. The men spend most of their time trying to bugger little boys, and the women hide behind veils, filled with shame. Juror number eight is to be commended for his accuracy and regard for the truth!
Sorry you got kicked off the jury NO BOOK DEAL FOR YOU!
and “actual lawyer” go crawl back into your plastic pink dream house you are clearly a MORON
Juror No. 8 made grossly inappropriate remarks concerning defendant Isaac Larian
based on his ethnicity during jury deliberations. Specifically, Juror No. 8 indicated that her husband, an attorney, has told her about client or clients who are Iranian and who are stubborn, rude, stingy, are thieves, and have stolen other person’s ideas.
Although Juror No. 8 minimized her remarks and insisted that she did not mean to do anything wrong, the relative consistency and degree of detail of the other jurors who heard her make the remarks, combined with other factors that lend credibility to the other jurors’ account of the remarks and not to Juror No. 8, leads the Court to conclude that Juror No. 8 made the remarks, or something close to the remarks, set forth above.
We have a jury system, the purpose of which is that regular everyday people get to decide cases.
Then, when one of those regular people makes a remark that’s common among the regular every ay people, who aren’t politically correct like the higher classes who read the Wall Street Journal, the judge has to declare a mistrial?
Why not just dump the jury system if that’s the attitude we’re going to have?
I lived in Iran and they *do have some truly obnoxious people there. I’d even bet its probably about the same percentage we do here. omg!
Some of you ppl need to take a pill.
seems simple–the jury decision was to be unanimous, and one of the jurors was biased–therefore decision not unanimous, call a mistrial.
but nothing is ever simple–the judge already stated that it didn’t affect deliberations which would suggest the judge might be biased.
all of this over a case that is morally wrong to begin with; a person has an idea that his company was never shown nor was ever going to use, and sets off on his own. MGA didn’t break into Mattel HQ and steal ideas, an employee came to them. Gee that sounds a lot like America — taking your experience and trying to better yourself — guess it’s perfectly OK for all except Toy Companies and the courtrooms — and Persian Jews of course. (Larian has lived in the USA for 30-plus years, and employs an awful lot of Americans).
in any jury, or any group of people for that matter, there are 1 or 2 that control the conversations and have a strong impact of the thought processes. if the biased juror was one of those (her husband is an attorney so I suggest she had strong opinions about the law), she certainly may have had an impact on the deliberations.
Why did only one juror come forward? Wouldn’t matter if it were one person that said the remarks but then it’s stated OTHERS heard her too. More than one person on this jury is wrong, the others (how many?) are also wrong for allowing her to stay and not say anything, I would be afraid they either agreed with her or were afraid of her- this jury pool is already messed up on so many levels.
If there was only one who felt morally obligated to report this to the judge…then i wouldnt be surprised if the others agreed with juror 8.
Either way, she clearly felt this way (and was dumb enough to say it) which obviously tainted her perspective on the case from the start which obviously had an effect on the othere jurors. This is wrong, and everyone is entitiled to a fair and unbiased trial. mattel could care less though…they are a company that cultivates racism, and stereotypes.
gooddddddddddddd
Yes Mattel apparently thinks this shouldn’t change the verdict at all. I mean they actually SAY that, this has to be the ugliest company I have ever heard of.
Of course they are going to say that. The main issue here is that voicing her opinions is like a cancer. Whether or not she mean to, her view inevitably changed the views of the entire jury. This is essentially how stereotypes are formed. Unbelievable.
This is a blue blooded corporate American company that has the advantage of the mainly white supremesist public that pervade this country. Its really simple. This is a Jewish Iranian immigrant who is threatening the power of a toy giant. They are scared and will use all their resources to litigate every company that comes in their path.
i love barbies
under these circumstances if this judge doesn’t declare a mistrial I think he should be kicked off the trial and seriously investigated because any judge that would say all of this was okay is seriously incompetent
I dont understand the issue here.. Iranians are stubborn, rude, stingy, are thieves, and have stolen other person’s ideas
Here in Los Angeles, Iranians call themselves Persians, but still lie, cheat, steal other ppl’s wifes, money and ideas..
MISTRIAL 7:15 pm - The only “Life’s work” that was taken away was from Mattel
She was not tainted.. she was simply restating facts..
“blueblooded?” that’s a ridiculously ignorant and narrow statement. Mattel was founded by a Jewish family. Do better research next time, you idiot.
It’s really sad that we have a “post-racial candidate” running for president, but we cannot have a post-racial courtroom in Los Angeles. Sadly, Mattel’s attorneys brought up race on the first day of this trial, in opening statements, by referring to “Isaac Larian’s Iranian parents.” Why did Mattel’s attorneys bring up race on the first day of this trial? Unfortunately, this trial reeked of racism from day one.
Looks like the racist jury is here entertaining themselves.
ahhh
I am not saying I agree, but the law as it stands probably will dictate that the verdict stand. The juror may be dismissed, but a mistrial is usually only declared in cases like this when an improper outside influence is brought to bear on the deliberations of the jury. Some may argue that this juror’s prejudices are an “outside influence” but that is not the case. It would have to be something like bringing in a newspaper or something of that nature to argue for the liability/nonliability. Further, unanimity is not required for civil jury trials so arguments concerning this aspect of the verdict are moot. (And actually, the Supreme Court has held that unanimity is not even required in a criminal case unless less than 12 jurors are used to reach a verdict).
There are only 10 jurors in this trial, so unanimous the verdict must be.
Putting racism aside, another huge issue is corporate greed and monopolies–the conglomerates are pushing their weight around more than ever–stifling competition thru litigation and volume pricing–we will soon be left with Walmart, Mattel, Home Depot, Best Buy, one airline and one auto company, which we won’t be able to afford if there is no competition, as we will either be working for them or out of work.
Need to bring back Teddy the Trust Buster Roosevelt from 100 years ago and fix this stuff before it’s too late.
Also, to “probably stands” — the woman says she got her ideas about Iranians from her husband, an attorney, meaning there was an outside influence at play here.
She discussed the case with family during the trial - a lawyer, in deliberations people discuss issues back and forth if and they are influenced by each other. The woman apparently had enough influence over the others that the minute she made the racist remarks they did not go RIGHT THEN en masse to the judge- they allowed a verdict to be decided and then only one person came forward. If this isn’t a mistrial that judge needs to be canned because this is in no way a fair trial.
This Jury probably has dollar signs in their eyes and will SAY ANYTHING to stay onboard so they can write books and pretend to be tiny little celebs, they all need to be booted. Their greed just because Mattel is rotted with greed doesn’t make them fair.
I think the key to this is as you say–why did only one juror tell the judge several days later and not the rest of them if they were truly appalled?
Maybe to be done with their jury duty; however the surprise was that the very same jury was to be kept for the rest of the trial, so they didn’t get to go home anyway. Maybe now they will if a mistrial is declared.
Clearly Mattel lawyers know that Iran is a hot button now and so is immigration. Interesting to note that the trial was moved to Riverside, hardly close to El Segundo Mattel or Van Nuys MGA.
dump the jury system
Look, everybody knows what Iranian Jews are capable of and how we behave in a deceitful and malicious manner. Don’t be surprised that we stole something from Mattel, that’s how we get rich.
You already blew your jury fame go crawl in a hole.
to iranianjew- you must be one jealous person- who did not make it in this country- feel sorry for you.
Is a juror even permitted to impeach his own verdict in a situation like this? I’m sure CA has a liberal approach, but I thought it typically takes something like an unsanctioned visit to a crime scene, consideration of facts not in evidence, etc. rather than personal prejudice to grant a new trial. Also, verdict doesn’t have to be unanimous since its a civil trial.
Federal civil requires unanimous decision by jury.
below from Cornell Law School:
Rule 48. Number of Jurors; Verdict
A jury must initially have at least 6 and no more than 12 members, and each juror must participate in the verdict unless excused under Rule 47(c). Unless the parties stipulate otherwise, the verdict must be unanimous and be returned by a jury of at least 6 members.
Persians lie,cheat, steal, etc.
So does the White House.
jimbob, this is a California state court action, so the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply. California law allows less than 12 jurors and non-unanimous verdicts for civil trials.
chillout, this case is in U.S.District Court in Riverside, CA, and is a Federal Copyright infringement case.
YOU GO JIMBOB!
YSDAPIOLKAP
TSFADPIOLKSMHDBCSAD
YADSOIP PAHDFS OALKDN YAFDS
YUOIPAF TADSOU HAFSDA YAFSD
SDAPOJL KALPIO FADSOP POILK
ISKPOOL YSFDAP RDSAPI FADSO
HANMOIL FSDAPO IFDDAS IHSFA
tung mua me plqejn barbit shum dhe i dua po nese jan per me pru babrbi nja 5 bARBI MI PRU MUE SE JAN SHUM TE BUKURA DHE TE LEZETSGME TUNG NGA BARBI VALE.
the obvious…. juror 8 was wrong….remove juror 8… thats one juror dismissed, judgment still stands….mattel is in the right, so it has been heard, and should not be the villain due to the comments of 1 juror….
The verdict is nonsense, even if it “stands” it will be appealed because if this jury did not award ownership of the first drawings to Mattel, when the Bratz were actually created, then what do they think they own? They won later sketches Carter did, not the Bratz and he did not create the Bratz while at Mattel- so what exactly do they think they’ll get? Drawings and that is all.
This judge is a silly cow. The law is clear and this should become front page news.
All you MGA and Skadden employees can stop posting here and find something productive to do. The Judge has now denied MGA’s motion, just as the law required and as any rational lawyer knew would happen.
Oh Mattel pond scum oozing in from the swamp it comes from :P
nothing! but bratz and barbie is ok i wishhhhhhh barbie and bratz beee gooddddd!!!!!!!!
i not like bratz and barbie…
Breckjih mam že 29
nqiedfde de rf lajdokn,w jdhjuwjcjdhj,mkiiop,oiopi,wk,wlslk,l,kmhb
mis amigas no son mis amigas son mis primas y mis ermanas yermanos ytnvien tengo amigos y
amigas y somos todos asi
