[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..