Mattel, Inc. v. Bryant
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
446 F.3d 1011 (2006)
Mattel (plaintiff), based in California, sued former employee and Missouri resident Carter Bryant (defendant) in California state court over his creation of the Bratz doll line; Bryant removed the case to federal court based on diversity, and MGA Entertainment, the California-based Bratz manufacturer, intervened as a defendant under Rule 24. Mattel moved to remand to state court, arguing MGA was non-diverse and indispensable, risking prejudice to its interests if excluded; MGA and Bryant argued MGA wasn't indispensable since Mattel could obtain complete relief without it. The district court denied Mattel's remand motion, and the Ninth Circuit agreed to hear Mattel's interlocutory appeal.
Whether, if jurisdiction in a federal court is founded on diversity and a non-diverse, non-indispensable defendant intervenes in the case, the court may exercise jurisdiction over such defendant.