SAN DIEGO -- December 08, 2008 -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Coughlin Stoia") announces a federal district court has held that toy manufacturers and retailers, namely Mattel, Fisher-Price, Wal-Mart, Target, Toys "R" Us, Kmart and KB Toys, may not escape liability to consumers who bought children's toys containing lead, lead paint, or dangerous magnets merely because the companies later offered or provided the consumers with replacement toys as part of a recall program.

On the eve of the holiday shopping season, Judge Dale S. Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied the companies' request to dismiss a class action complaint against them, based on their argument that Mattel's recall program provided consumers an adequate remedy. "Defendants' argument that some Plaintiffs have not been injured because they received replacement toys in the voluntary recalls is unpersuasive," declared Judge Fischer in her order rejecting the corporations' request to dismiss the case.

"The Court's decision allows injured consumers' claims to proceed against Mattel and retailers of these hazardous toys. The concerned parents who filed this lawsuit are seeking a fair remedy for the significant harm, worry, and expense caused by these toxic toys," said John J. Stoia, Jr., of Coughlin Stoia, the law firm that serves as co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs and the Class along with the firm of Whatley Drake and Kallas LLC. "The brazen attempt by Mattel, Fisher-Price, Wal-Mart and others to evade responsibility is an insult to suffering families, and we are pleased that the Court rejected these companies' attempts to play Scrooge during the holiday toy-shopping season," added Mr. Stoia.

Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on behalf of millions of children and families who purchased children's toys that were marketed as safe but later recalled due to excessive levels of lead in the surface paint or hazardous magnets. In fact, Mattel recalled over 10 million children's toys in the U.S. (20 million worldwide), including popular lines such as Dora the Explorer and Barbie, after it was revealed that some of the toys exceeded legal lead limits by 180 times or contained a faulty design involving small, loose magnets.

Earlier this year, a coalition of parents whose children were injured by Mattel's toys sent a letter to Mattel's CEO, Robert Eckert (http://www.centerjd.org/archives/issues-facts/LettertoMattel.pdf), asking Mattel to "do the right thing by voluntarily lowering the amount of lead" in the company's toys. Plaintiffs allege that, rather than responding to the families' urgent plea by making their toys safer, the defendant companies attempted to evade responsibility by simply mailing vouchers for replacement toys to some injured children and their parents.

Judge Fischer also rejected the toy companies' request to deny medical testing and monitoring for children who were exposed to the toxic toys. "Plaintiffs were injured through (potential) exposure to lead that required them to seek out the medical monitoring," wrote Judge Fischer.

As we enter the holiday toy-shopping season, consumer advocates are reminding shoppers to remain vigilant about the toys they buy and the retailers they support. In fact, a report released on December 3, 2008, by Michigan-based Ecology Center revealed that one in three toys on the market tested positive for "medium" or "high" levels of toxic chemicals, such as lead, flame retardants and arsenic, and that 20% of the 1,500 popular children's toys contain toxic lead. Consumers are encouraged to consult the Ecology Center's guide to toxic chemicals in toys before doing their holiday shopping; this guide is available at http://www.healthytoys.org/.

The Court's Order rejecting defendants' motions to dismiss and plaintiffs' complaint detailing their consumer claims against Mattel, Fisher-Price, Wal-Mart, Target, Toys "R" Us, KB Toys and Kmart for manufacturing, designing, marketing, and selling the toxic toys at issue can be viewed at www.csgrr.com/ToxicToys.