Mattel Snags $100 Million in Bratz Lawsuit

Toymaker Mattel, probably best known as the maker of Barbie, has been embroiled in a copyright infringement lawsuit related to the popular Bratz dolls, manufactured by MGA Entertainment.

Mattel, headquartered out here in Southern California, sued MGA originally for $1.8 billion (you read that correctly--billion), claiming current MGA employee Carter Bryant (Mattel's former employee) came up with the idea for Bratz on Mattel's time. Specifically, Mattel accused Mr. Bryant of sneaking around behind Mattel's back and working as a consultant for MGA.

The Bratz dolls, which are geared more to today's *ahem* modern values, successfully carved a nice chunk out of Barbie's marketshare.

Plenty of ugliness and accusations ensued, and ultimately a jury awarded Mattel $100 million--a fraction of the original damages sought.

Worse for Mattel, their share price took a sizeable hit this morning. To make matters even worse, some reports estimate Mattel's legal costs in the first half of this year at $44 million--mostly stemming from the Bratz suit.

Ouch.

But hey, a win's a win. And Mattel, known for aggressive litigation to protect their Barbie brand, probably just considers it a cost of doing business.

Lawsuits R Us

TIME magazine informs us that a lawyer has come up with a, um, creative way to tap into Americans' voracious appetite for litigation.

As if there weren't enough people out there suing each other, now a Florida attorney has come up with a way to make the process even easier.

Beginning next month, anyone with access to the Internet should be able to log onto WhoCanISue.com. The new website plans to help consumers determine whether they actually have a case and help them find an attorney from a list of lawyers who advertise their expertise on the website. The attorneys will pay an annual fee of $1,000 to appear on the site, plus an additional amount of their own choosing that will determine how prominently they appear in the listings on the site. The website will vet the attorneys to make sure they are in good standing with their state bar associations.

For those of you concerned about this type of service encouraging frivolous lawsuits, don't worry. We get calming reassurance from the company's founder:

But Wolfe maintains his service could just as easily help someone realize he doesn't have a case — or that, while they may have a legal claim, it won't generate enough money to interest an attorney to take it on.

Phew! I feel better.

Click here for the full article...

You Don't Say...

In a recent article, In U.S., Partisan Expert Witnesses Frustrate Many, The New York Times explores a subject that we frequently discuss with our clients: The tendency for plaintiff and defense expert witnesses to "cancel each other out."

Judge Denver D. Dillard was trying to decide whether a slow-witted Iowa man accused of acting as a drug mule was competent to stand trial. But the conclusions of the two psychologists who gave expert testimony in the case, Judge Dillard said, were “polar opposites.”

One expert, who had been testifying for defendants for 20 years, said the accused, Timothy M. Wilkins, was mentally retarded and did not understand what was happening to him. Mr. Wilkins’s verbal I.Q. was 58, the defense expert said.

The prosecution expert, who had testified for the state more than 200 times, said that Mr. Wilkins’s verbal I.Q. was 88, far above the usual cutoffs for mental retardation, and that he was perfectly competent to stand trial.

Judge Dillard, of the Johnson County District Court in Iowa City, did what American
judges and juries often do after hearing from dueling experts: he threw up his hands. The two experts were biased in favor of the parties who employed them, the judge said, and they had given predictable testimony. “The two sides have canceled each other out,” Judge Dillard wrote in 2005, refusing to accept either expert’s conclusion and complaining that “no funding mechanism exists for the court to appoint an expert.”

This really shouldn't come as much of a surprise. Most jurors are fairly adept at following the money and forming common sense conclusions about bias.

In most instances, expert witnesses for both sides boast credentials in education, training, and relevant experience--with neither being more credible than the other (on paper at least). We find that jurors, driven by the common sense perception experts will cater testimony to support the side signing their check, often find that paid experts don't carry much sway. Jurors instead tend to focus on personality traits, whether the witness educates jurors in "plain english," and even tie colors and mannerisms when assigning credibility.

I found this amusing. The expert witness for the state provided a telling quote describing the experience:

“After you come out of court,” Dr. Welsh said, “you feel like you need a shower. They’re asking you to be certain of things you can’t be certain of.”

Another colorful quote:

“To put it bluntly, in many professions, service as an expert witness is not considered honest work,” Samuel R. Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan, wrote in the Wisconsin Law Review. “The contempt of lawyers and judges for experts is famous. They regularly describe expert witnesses as prostitutes.”

And another zinger:

Martin Belli, the famed trial lawyer, endorsed this view. “If I got myself an impartial witness,” he once said, “I’d think I was wasting my money.”

This article strongly supports a sentiment we often share with clients, especially in medical malpractice cases: Expert witnesses mainly serve to support a jurors' initial perception of the case facts--and rarely influence jurors to switch to the other side.

Therefore, tapping into juror predispositions--the biases they are likely to walk into the courtroom with--and shaping expert testimony to conform to those preloads, is where legal teams should focus most of their energy. Relying on an expert witness, regardless of their impressive credentials or background, to turn the tides of juror sentiment, is fraught with risks given the likelihood for opposing witnesses to "cancel each other out."

Read the entire article...

Jury seated in lawsuit against Osteen's wife

From the Associated Press:

A jury was seated Wednesday in a lawsuit alleging the wife of nationally known pastor Joel Osteen assaulted a flight attendant.

Opening arguments were set for Thursday in a case Victoria Osteen's lawyer called "silly." But Reginald McKamie, attorney for Continental Airlines flight attendant Sharon Brown, said he hopes the trial will show "that celebrity status doesn't take precedence."

Brown accuses Victoria Osteen of assaulting her before the start of a 2005 flight from Houston to Vail, Colo. Brown alleges Victoria Osteen threw her against a bathroom door and elbowed her in the left breast during an angry outburst over a stain on her first-class seat. The Federal Aviation Administration fined Victoria Osteen $3,000 for interfering with a crew member.

Joel Osteen was at his wife's side Wednesday in court. McKamie said he expected to call the couple as witnesses.

Joel Osteen preaches at Lakewood Church, a Houston megachurch where about 42,000 people flock each week and where Victoria Osteen is co-pastor. His weekly television address is broadcast nationally and internationally.

Some potential jurors during questioning admitted to being star-struck by the Osteens and that their respect for them might affect their judgment.

"He has gotten me through a lot of tough times. I would believe what he has to say. I have a lot of respect for him," one female in the jury pool said.

Other potential jurors said they didn't like preachers or televangelists and that ministers can lie. Brown wants an apology and punitive damages amounting to 10 percent of Victoria Osteen's net worth as part of her suit.

Victoria Osteen's lawyer, Rusty Hardin, said before jury selection began Wednesday that Brown's claims are false and that what happened was a "minor incident." Hardin also asked a judge to throw out an FAA report detailing the alleged incident, saying the agency's investigation was "incredibly incomplete."

...

According to court documents, Brown claims that she suffers from anxiety and hemorrhoids because of the incident and said her faith was affected. She is also suing Osteen for medical expenses for counseling.

Brown had previously claimed she was attacked in another incident by an airport employee, according to a deposition she gave in the case.

So, to recap, suffering from hemorrhoids are worth 10% of another individual's net worth.

Read the entire article...

Juror: Judge and jury pressured me to convict man

Regardless of what the forewoman says, sometimes, despite the best jury instructions and intentions, jurors just want to go home.

RIVERHEAD, New York (AP) -- A juror who helped convict a black man of fatally shooting a white teenager said he felt pressured by other jurors and the judge to change his vote to guilty during a marathon deliberating session.

The jury convicted John White of second-degree manslaughter Saturday in the August 2006 shooting of 17-year-old Daniel Cicciaro Jr.

White, 54, remains free on bail and plans to appeal. He faces a prison term of five to 15 years.

The case drew national attention after defense attorneys argued that he feared a "lynch mob" had come to attack his family when a group of angry white teenagers gathered outside his home. The teens wanted to confront White's son.

Juror Francois Larche, who is white, said he and another juror changed their votes after enduring "a lot of psychological tactics" from fellow jurors during an unusual weekend session ordered by the judge over jurors' protests.

"It was a huge burden to bear," Larche, 46, told the New York Post in Monday's editions. He added, "I took a lot of heat."

Jury forewoman Maureen Steigerwald denied that the judge, a 12-hour deliberating session on Saturday -- the fourth day of deliberations -- or the holidays played a role in the jury's decision.

"The jury did a very careful, conscientious deliberate job," she told Newsday in Monday's editions.

Judge Barbara Kahn said the jury would have to return on Sunday if they didn't reach a decision. Larche told the Post the judge told them a mistrial would burden the families and the next jury.

"I thought about my family and the families of the other jurors," Larche said. "It was not worth it in the end."

Read the entire article...