27 Dead, Including 18 Children, In Elementary School Shooting In Newtown, Conn.

[Badger52]

In my view too many justices are inclined to allow cases to proceed simply because they pose an interesting thought exercise, with little to no consideration as to whether the suit brought is right or wrong in the first place. (Yes, I'm projecting here; and I don't care.)

This should have never been allowed to get past the first courtroom.
The visceral closure of societal justice has been denied because Lanza off'd himself.
This is a wrong being followed by another wrong and the black-robed demigods who sit above the clouds should be thoroughly ashamed.

[Airbornelawyer]

As I understand it, the case was filed in Connecticut's state courts because the plaintiffs included the Connecticut gun shop where the rifle was bought, even though the real target of the suit was the manufacturer. Basically, federal courts only have jurisdiction if the case is a matter of federal law (subject matter jurisdiction) or if the parties are in different states or countries (diversity jurisdiction). Plaintiffs who do not want to be in Federal court will often include a party in the state to avoid diversity jurisdiction. Defendants who do not want to be in Federal court will also sometimes try to include a local party to destroy diversity, but defendants, especially corporations, generally prefer Federal courts because they think they will be treated more fairly there.

Plaintiffs often prefer state courts for a number of reasons. First, state court juries drawn from the local population are often seen as more favorable to plaintiffs. Second, state court judges are often elected or appointed to limited terms by the state government, and are thus more subject to political and public relations pressure than Federal judges with lifetime appointments. Connecticut judges are nominated to eight-year terms by the Governor and appointed by the General Assembly.

I assume the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case on ripeness grounds, since it was just returned to the trial court by the Connecticut Supreme Court.

[JJ_BPK]

Originally Posted by Airbornelawyer

As I understand it, the case was filed in Connecticut's state courts because the plaintiffs included the Connecticut gun shop where the rifle was bought, even though the real target of the suit was the manufacturer.

Basically, federal courts only have jurisdiction if the case is a matter of federal law (subject matter jurisdiction) or if the parties are in different states or countries (diversity jurisdiction).

Plaintiffs who do not want to be in Federal court will often include a party in the state to avoid diversity jurisdiction. Defendants who do not want to be in Federal court will also sometimes try to include a local party to destroy diversity, but defendants, especially corporations, generally prefer Federal courts because they think they will be treated more fairly there.

Plaintiffs often prefer state courts for a number of reasons. First, state court juries drawn from the local population are often seen as more favorable to plaintiffs. Second, state court judges are often elected or appointed to limited terms by the state government, and are thus more subject to political and public relations pressure than Federal judges with lifetime appointments. Connecticut judges are nominated to eight-year terms by the Governor and appointed by the General Assembly.

I assume the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case on ripeness grounds since it was just returned to the trial court by the Connecticut Supreme Court.

What he said.

My 0-LE standing had a sneaky suspicion that the claimants used Remington to avoid Federal intervention.
Thank you..

[tonyz]

One man’s simple summary.

Remington v. Soto – Why Everyone Should Keep Calm and Carry On

BY TTAG CONTRIBUTOR |NOV 14, 2019 |

ED: LKB is an experienced litigator and a member of the US Supreme Court bar. He’ll be in the courtroom next month for the arguments in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York case, reporting for TTAG.]

By LKB

There has been much hysteria in the gun community over the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case of Remington Arms v. Soto. That’s the Connecticut case brought by parents and one survivor of the Sandy Hook shooting.

Gun opponents (and most of the media) are crowing that this means firearms companies can now be sued into oblivion, and some gun rights advocates are similarly crying that the sky is falling and the Supreme Court has abandoned us. Neither of these views are accurate.

To understand, let’s dispel some myths.

First, contrary to some of what many TTAG readers are saying in the comments, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) does NOT provide blanket immunity to firearms manufacturers. For example, if the gun has a defective trigger, you can still bring a products liability claim against the manufacturer if that particular manufacturing or design defect directly caused you injury. Or if a firearms manufacturer is engaged in price fixing or bid rigging, it is still subject to the normal civil or criminal liability for such conduct.

What PLCAA does say is that you can’t sue firearms manufacturers for liability arising from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm by third parties. But PLCAA does contain several exceptions to this — one of which is the following:

an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.

15 USC 7903(5)(A)(iii).

We’ll come back to that in a minute.

Second, the Connecticut Supreme Court did not find that Remington was liable, nor did they reflexively find for the plaintiffs. In fact, it affirmed the dismissal of all but one of the plaintiffs’ claims — a claim that Bushmaster’s advertising violated a Connecticut state law that prohibits false advertising.

With respect to that claim, the Court found that, taking the arguments presented in plaintiffs’ pleadings as true (which is the standard for a motion to dismiss), it was possible that plaintiffs could establish at trial that (1) Bushmaster violated a state law applicable to the marketing of the product, (2) that said violation proximately caused plaintiffs’ injuries, and therefore (3) the above mentioned exception to the PLCAA immunity applies. It’s a very narrow decision that squeaked by the barest of margins (4-3).

Third, while the US Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case immediately is disappointing, that was hardly unexpected or unusual. The harsh reality is that the Supreme Court takes up very, very few cases — even when there are clear circuit splits or obvious disregard for settled law. It’s frustrating and maddening, but it’s been the reality of Supreme Court practice for generations.

More importantly, procedurally, the case is at the motion to dismiss stage — the case has not been tried on the merits, and the Supreme Court rarely if ever takes any cases that are at this stage.

Compounding matters, the Connecticut Supreme Court majority (likely to further reduce the possibility of immediate Supreme Court review) couched their decision in terms of state law — and the US Supreme Court almost never weighs in on such state issues.

So, what does this mean going forward?

For the plaintiffs in Remington Arms v. Soto, it means that they will now have to prove, with admissible evidence, that (1) Bushmaster in fact violated the Connecticut false marketing statute, (2) that Bushmaster knowingly violated it, and (3) that such violations proximately caused plaintiffs’ injuries.

While I seriously doubt plaintiffs will be able to prove any of these, the third element appears virtually impossible to prove (as I believe the dissent in the Connecticut Supreme Court recognized).

As I see it, the plaintiffs will have to show — with admissible evidence — that Adam Lanza actually saw the advertising in question, and that the false nature of the advertising (i.e., the state law violation) is what caused him to commit mass murder and thus caused plaintiffs’ injuries.

That is, to say the least, a very heavy lift that I doubt plaintiffs will be able to satisfy or carry the burden of proving that at trial.

As for the U.S. Supreme Court . . . because the pro-2A community is highly invested in gun-related lawsuits, it’s easy to get intellectually lazy and see anti-2A bogeyman and stratagems behind everything that happens. Such attitudes are not dissimilar to those of college social justice warrior types who stridently and confidently proclaim that everything they see is the result of racism/sexism/the patriarchy/climate change/etc.

Calm down and look dispassionately at the facts and realities of Supreme Court practice and procedures, rather than simply assuming that the fix is in.

Would I have liked to have seen the Supreme Court grant cert in this case? Certainly.
Was that even remotely likely to happen given the procedural posture of this case? No way.

Does the Court’s decision not to grant cert on an unripe case that turned on a state law issue foreshadow anything regarding the Court’s attitudes toward Second Amendment cases? No.

Now, if Roberts wimps out in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association case, I’ll join everyone in decrying the Supreme Court’s lack of fortitude. But the fact that the Court didn’t take up a case that anybody with a modicum of legal experience would tell you was a longshot cert petition at best signifies nothing.

In the mean time, everyone would do well to take a deep breath and calm down. There’s no indication at all that the sky is falling. Yet.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/re...-and-carry-on/

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by tonyz

Calm down and look dispassionately at the facts and realities of Supreme Court practice and procedures, rather than simply assuming that the fix is in.

I don't assume the 'fix' is in. I simply don't trust many of the crop of black robes these days. They have shown they have more stretch than Gumby.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Badger52

I don't assume the 'fix' is in. I simply don't trust many of the crop of black robes these days. They have shown they have more stretch than Gumby.

Roger that. The author’s comment and the article itself was not directed at you individually. Article does, however, do a fair job of simply explaining the legal gymnastics required for a procedural rather than a substantive determination and next steps.

Arguably one of the most regulated industries in the country is the firearm’s industry. The Lanza kid is to blame for those deaths and his poor dead mother may ultimately be found to have some ownership in that terrible shooting and she’s dead, too.

Adam Lanza reportedly stole the firearm in question and murdered his mother before murdering other innocents. This case is at a point in CT where all the facts, discovery, general rules and exceptions should be fleshed out.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by tonyz

Roger that. The author’s comment and the article itself was not directed at you individually.

No worries, didn't take it that way. We've all seen times when the fix was in; sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. And sometimes it is, until it isn't (ask HRC). And sometimes it isn't, until it is (ask Comey).

I might be just a little cynical.