Case ID: f-appx_502/html/0670-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carter BRYANT, an individual, Plaintiff, and Mattel, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Mattel De Mexico S.A. De C.V., Plaintiffs-Appellees, and MGA Entertainment, Inc., a California corporation; MGA Entertainment (HK) Limited, a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region business entity; MGAE De Mexico, S.R.L. De C.V., a Mexico business entity; Isaac Larian, Defendants-Appellees, v. CRUM & FORSTER SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervenor-Appellant, Carlos Gustavo Machado Gomez; Omni 808 Investors, LLC; IGWT 826 Investments, LLC, Defendants, and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA; Lexington Insurance Company; Chartis Specialty Insurance Company, Intervenors. Carter Bryant, an individual, Plaintiff, Mattel, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Mattel De Mexico S.A. De C.V., Plaintiffs-Appellees, and MGA Entertainment, Inc., a California corporation; MGA Entertainment (HK) Limited, a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region business entity; MGAE De Mexico, S.R.L. De C.V., a Mexico business entity; Isaac Larian, Defendants-Appellees, v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, pa; Lexington Insurance Company; Chartis Specialty Insurance Company, Intervenors-Appellants, Carlos Gustavo Machado Gomez; Omni 808 Investors, LLC; IGWT 826 Investments, LLC, Defendants, Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, Intervenor.
    Nos. 11-56868, 11-56881.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Dec. 10, 2012.
    Filed Dec. 19, 2012.
    John B. Quinn, Esquire, Michael Thomas Zeller, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Ryan Geoffrey Baker, Baker Marquart LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Kathleen M. Sullivan, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Susan J. Field, Esquire, Jennifer M. Kokes, Musick Peeler & Garrett, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Intervenors-Appel-lants and Intervenor Crum and Forster Specialty Insurance Company.
    Mark Christopher Errico, Esquire, Mark Sheridan, Esquire, Patton Boggs LLP, Newark, NJ, Suzanne Stouder, Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, Los Ange-les, CA, for Intervenor and Intervenors-Appellants, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA.
    Michael Bidart, Esquire, Ricardo Echev-erría, Esquire, Shernoff Bidart Echever-ría, LLP, Claremont, CA, Jennifer Lynn Keller, Keller Rackauckas LLP, Irvine, CA, Thomas Jerome Nolan, Esquire, Jason D. Russell, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich, Esquire, The Ehrlich Law Firm, Encino, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Alexander Cote, Scheper Kim & Harris LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Mark Eric Overland, Esquire, Law Offices of Mark E. Overland, Santa Monica, CA, Todd E. Gor-dinier, Peter N. Villar, Esquire, Bingham McCutchen LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, for Defendants.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, TROTT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance — it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S.Ct. 400, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982) (per curiam). The district court’s judgment determined the entire action and included an award of attorneys’ fees. Mattel’s subsequent notice of appeal divested the district court of its jurisdiction; the district court thus lacked jurisdiction to entertain appellants’ motion to intervene. See Nicol v. Gulf Fleet Supply Vessels, Inc., 743 F.2d 298, 299 (5th Cir.1984). We therefore affirm the denial of intervention, but do so on the ground that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain any such motion.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition isn’t appropriate for publication and isn't precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.