Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Recalled Mattel Toys: Class Action Suits Seek Medical Monitoring
As with other defective Chinese products of late, U.S. consumers are looking for some accountability from the domestic importers. Two Pennsylvania law firms have filed class action suits against toy company Mattel Inc. The suits were filed in an effort to compel Mattel, the importer of millions of Chinese-made toys that have been recalled recently due to lead paint and small magnets, to pay for lead testing for children who may have been affected by the toys.
In Monroe v. Mattel Inc., 2:2007cv03410 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 17, 2007), the parents of Nydia Monroe also seek to set up a medical-monitoring fund for the testing for lead poisoning. The plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $5 million, which would include the costs of medical monitoring, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs, according to the complaint.
Jeffrey Killino, of Woloshon & Killino in Philadelphia, said the class size in his case could reach into the millions. He said he is inclined to move into other countries where the toys were sold as well. Killino teamed up with Los Angeles-based Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack ' one of the firms highlighted in the Erin Brockovich movie ' to file Powell v. Mattel, No. BC376231 (Cal. Super.Ct., Los Angeles, Aug. 20, 2007) on behalf of Michael and Adrian Powell, who wanted their children tested for lead poisoning.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?