In re Mattel, Inc. Toy Lead Paint Products Liability Litig.

Case # 07-ml-01897
Case Name In re Mattel, Inc. Toy Lead Paint Products Liability Litig.
Jurisdiction US District Court for C.D. CA
Summary

Plaintiffs allege the Defendants (major toy manufacturers and retailers) knowingly sold toys which contained an excessive and dangerous amount of lead paint and/or contained small magnets that can become detached due to a design flaw and present a choking hazard. Defendants presented their products as being “safe” despite being aware of these product flaws.

Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for the cost of hazardous toys, as well as the costs of diagnostic screening and treatment for those who were exposed to lead paint.

Final Approval Date 03/26/2010
Result
  1. All objections were found to be without merit and were overruled.
  2. Objectors Julia A. Sweeney (through attorneys Edward F. Siegel and Francis E. Sweeney, Jr), Clyde Farrel Padgett (pro se) and Chase A. Thompson (through attorney Steve A. Miller) appealed the Final Approval.
  3. Appeals were voluntarily dismissed by the parties.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 11/19/2010
Attachments Second Amended Class Action Complaint.pdf
Order of Preliminary Approval.pdf
Order Approving Class.pdf
Fairness Hearing Transcript.pdf
Final Judgement.pdf
Dismissal of Appeal.pdf
Docket Report.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Clyde Farrel Padgett

Objectors Clyde Farrel Padgett
Signers Clyde Farrel Padgett
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Defendant is only required to conduct safety tests dating back three years.
  2. Proposed settlement offers no relief beyond what Mattel had previously voluntarily offered during a recall predating the lawsuit.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  4. Incentive awards for class representatives are not sufficiently explained and therefore are inappropriate.
  5. Terms of settlement inappropriately allow Defendant to destroy evidence (defective products, submitted as part of the settlement).
  6. Settlement lacks any deterrence from future misconduct by the Defendants.
  7. Having the claims administrator overseen by the Defendant prevents adequate oversight for the process.
Attachments Objection of Clyde Farrel Padgett.pdf
Appeal by Objector Clyde Farrel Padgett.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Dawn Hawley

Objectors Dawn Hawley
Signers Frank H. Tomlinson
Attorneys Frank H. Tomlinson
Michael D. Luppi
Summary
  1. Use of coupons for compensation forces class members to continue to do business with the Defendant.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.
  3. Class is divided into sub-classes who receive different levels and forms of compensation, without clear justification.
  4. Class members are not required to provide a proof of purchase but objectors are.
Attachments Objection of Dawn Hawley.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Jennifer Deachin n/k/a Jennifer Hinjosa

Objectors Jennifer Deachin n/k/a Jennifer Hinjosa
Signers N. Albert Bacharach, Jr.
Attorneys N. Albert Bacharach, Jr.
Michael D. Luppi
Summary
  1. Objectors are improperly required to submit a proof of purchase, when class members are not.
  2. Notice is deficient in that it does not properly differentiate between date of receipt of objection and postmark date on the objection.
  3. Use of coupons for compensation forces class members to continue to do business with the Defendant and amounts to advertising that benefits the Defendant.
  4. Implementation of a Quality Assurance System by Defendants benefits all potential consumers and is not a specific benefit for class members.
  5. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.
Attachments Objection of Jennifer Deachin.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Julia A. Sweeney

Objectors Julia A. Sweeney
Signers Edward F. Siegel
Attorneys Edward F. Siegel
Francis E. Sweeney, Jr.
Summary
  1. Use of coupons for compensation forces class members to continue to do business with the Defendant.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.
  3. "Clear sailing" provisions of the agreement are improper.
Attachments Objection of Julia A. Sweeney.pdf
Appeal of Objector Julia A. Sweeney.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Kathleen P. Tucciarelli

Objectors Kathleen P. Tucciarelli
Signers Sam P. Cannata
Attorneys Sam P. Cannata
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.
  2. Objectors are required to object to attorneys' fees before they are calculated.
  3. "Clear sailing" provisions of the agreement are improper.
Attachments Objection of Kathleen P. Tucciarelli.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Melanie Stone

Objectors Melanie Stone
Signers Paul S. Rothstein
Attorneys Paul S. Rothstein
Michael D. Luppi
Summary
  1. Use of coupons for compensation forces class members to continue to do business with the Defendant.
  2. Coupon compensation does not provide real benefit to the class.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.
  4. Quality Assurance System does not benefit the class because it should already exist.
  5. Class is divided into sub-classes who receive different levels and forms of compensation, without clear justification.
  6. Objectors are improperly required to submit a proof of purchase, when class members are not.
  7. Notice does not contain enough information to allow class members to accurately approximate their recovery.
Attachments Objection of Melanie Stone.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Chase A. Thompson

Objectors Chase A. Thompson
Signers Steve A. Miller
Attorneys Steve A. Miller
Summary
  1. Use of coupons for compensation forces class members to continue to do business with the Defendant, amounts to advertising that benefits the Defendant, and provides no real benefit to the class.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive, in that the products were already subject to recall and the class action has not added any benefit to class members.
  3. Class is divided into sub-classes who receive different levels and forms of compensation, without clear justification.
  4. Objectors are improperly required to submit a proof of purchase, when class members are not.
Attachments Objection of Chase Thompson.pdf
Appeal by Objector Chase Thompson.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated