N HE Supreme Court of the United States CNS

N He Supreme Court Of The United States Cns-Free PDF

  • Date:27 Jul 2020
  • Views:2
  • Downloads:0
  • Pages:277
  • Size:1.39 MB

Share Pdf : N He Supreme Court Of The United States Cns

Download and Preview : N He Supreme Court Of The United States Cns

Report CopyRight/DMCA Form For : N He Supreme Court Of The United States Cns


QUESTION PRESENTED,The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. PLCAA generally preempts claims against, manufacturers and sellers of firearms and ammunition. resulting from the criminal use of those products Ileto. v Glock Inc 565 F 3d 1126 1131 9th Cir 2009,However the PLCAA provides an exception for. action s in which a manufacturer or seller of a firearm. or ammunition knowingly violated a State or Federal. statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the. product 15 U S C 7903 5 A iii This exception has, come to be known as the predicate exception Ileto 565. F 3d at 1132 Crucially this predicate exception,enumerates examples of covered statutes and these.
examples specifically regulate the firearms industry 15. U S C 7903 5 A iii I II,The Connecticut Supreme Court below held that the. PLCAA s predicate exception encompasses all general. statutes merely capable of being applied to firearms sales. or marketing In contrast both the Second and Ninth. Circuits have rejected this broad interpretation of the. predicate exception which would swallow the PLCAA s. immunity rule City of New York v Beretta U S A Corp. 524 F 3d 384 402 403 2d Cir 2008 Ileto 565 F 3d at. 1134 1136 And the Ninth Circuit interpreted the, predicate exception even more narrowly than the Second. Circuit See ibid,The question presented is whether the PLCAA s. predicate exception encompasses alleged violations of. broad generally applicable state statutes such as the. Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act which forbids. unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive. acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or,commerce Conn Gen Stat 42 110b a. PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS,1 Petitioners Remington Arms Company LLC and.
Remington Outdoor Company Inc were defendants in,the trial court and appellees below. 2 The following parties respondents on review were. plaintiffs in the trial court and appellants below Donna. L Soto administratrix of the estate of Victoria L Soto. Ian Hockley and Nicole Hockley co administrators of the. estate of Dylan C Hockley David C Wheeler adminis,trator of the estate of Benjamin A Wheeler Mary. D Avino administratrix of the estate of Rachel M,D Avino Mark Barden and Jacqueline Barden co. administrators of the estate of Daniel G Barden William. D Sherlach as executor of the estate of Mary Joy Sher. lach and in his individual capacity Neil Heslin and Scar. lett Lewis co administrators of the estate of Jesse. McCord Lewis Leonard Pozner administrator of the es. tate of Noah S Pozner and Gilles J Rousseau adminis. trator of the estate of Lauren G Rousseau Natalie, Hammond was also a plaintiff in the trial court but was. not a party to the appeal below See App infra 3a n 2. 3 Camfour Inc Camfour Holding Inc Riverview, Sales Inc and David LaGuercia were defendants in the.
trial court and appellees below Plaintiffs voluntarily. withdrew the action as to these defendants appellees on. April 8 2019,4 Bushmaster Firearms Bushmaster Firearms Inc. Bushmaster Firearms International LLC Bushmaster,Holdings LLC and Freedom Group Inc were also. named as defendants below Those entities no longer ex. ist Petitioner Remington Outdoor Company Inc was,formerly known as Freedom Group Inc and Bushmas. ter Firearms International LLC was merged into and. exists only as a brand owned by petitioner Remington. Arms Company LLC,CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT,1 There is no publicly held company that owns 10. or more of the stock of Remington Arms Company LLC. Remington Arms Company LLC is a Delaware limited,liability company Remington Arms Company LLC s.
sole member is FGI Operating Company LLC FGI, Operating a Delaware limited liability company FGI. Operating s sole member is FGI Holding Company LLC. FGI Holding a Delaware limited liability company, FGI Holding s sole member is Remington Outdoor Com. pany Inc a Delaware corporation,2 Remington Outdoor Company Inc is a Delaware. corporation It has no parent corporation and no publicly. held corporation owns 10 or more of its stock,DIRECTLY RELATED CASES. 1 This case arises out of trial court proceedings in. Soto v Bushmaster Firearms International LLC No,FBT CV 15 6048103 S Conn Super Ct before the Su.
perior Court of Connecticut Judicial District of Fairfield. at Bridgeport On October 14 2016 the superior court. struck the amended complaint On November 18 2016,the superior court entered judgment. 2 The superior court s decision was appealed to the. Supreme Court of Connecticut which entered judgment. on March 19 2019 in Soto v Bushmaster Firearms In,ternational LLC Nos SC 19832 SC 19833 Conn On. May 1 2019 the Connecticut Supreme Court stayed fur. ther proceedings pending this Court s review, 3 Previously the trial court case was removed to the. U S District Court for the District of Connecticut See. Soto v Bushmaster Firearms Int l LLC No 3 15 cv,00068 RNC D Conn The district court remanded the. case to state court on October 16 2015, 4 There are no other directly related cases within.
the meaning of this Court s Rule 14 1 b iii,TABLE OF CONTENTS. Question Presented i,Parties to the Proceedings ii. Corporate Disclosure Statement iii,Directly Related Cases iii. Table of Authorities v,Opinions Below 1,Statement of Jurisdiction 1. Statutory Provisions Involved 1,Introduction 2,Statement of the Case 5.
A Federal Protection Of Lawful Commerce,B Factual And Procedural History 8. Reasons for Granting the Petition 16,A The Decision Below Exacerbates An. Acknowledged Division Of Authority 17,B The Decision Below Is Wrong 23. C This Case Is An Attractive Vehicle To,Resolve An Important And Recurring. Conclusion 33,Appendix A Opinion of the Supreme Court of.
Connecticut Mar 19 2019 1a,Appendix B Opinion of the Connecticut. Superior Court Oct 14 2016 156a,Appendix C Stay Order of the Supreme Court. of Connecticut May 1 2019 218a,Appendix D Statutory Provisions 220a. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES,Associated Inv Co v Williams Assocs IV. 645 A 2d 505 Conn 1994 21 22 26,BMW of N Am Inc v Gore.
517 U S 559 1996 29,City of Boston v Smith Wesson Corp. No 199902590 2000 WL 1473568,Mass Super Ct July 13 2000 27. City of Gary ex rel King v Smith,Wesson Corp,801 N E 2d 1222 Ind 2003 27. City of Gary v Smith Wesson Corp,No 18A CT 181 Ind App May 20. City of Gary v Smith Wesson Corp,No 18A CT 181 2019 WL 2222985.
Ind App May 23 2019 17 20,City of New York v Beretta U S A Corp. 524 F 3d 384 2d Cir 2008 passim,Cox Broadcasting Corp v Cohn. 420 U S 469 1975 30 31 32,Deal v United States,508 U S 129 1993 24. District of Columbia v Beretta U S A,940 A 2d 163 D C 2008 25. District of Columbia v Heller,554 U S 570 2008 6,Estate of Cowart v Nicklos Drilling Co.
505 U S 469 1992 23,Flynt v Ohio,451 U S 619 1981 per curiam 32. Fort Wayne Books Inc v Indiana,489 U S 46 1989 30,FTC v Sperry Hutchinson Co. 405 U S 233 1972 21 26,Ganim v Smith Wesson Corp,780 A 2d 98 Conn 2001 5 23 28 29. Ganim v Smith Wesson Corp,No CV 990153198S 1999 WL 1241909. Conn Super Ct Dec 10 1999 27,Goodyear Atomic Corp v Miller.
486 U S 174 1988 31,Hamilton v Beretta U S A Corp,264 F 3d 21 2d Cir 2001 6. Heller v District of Columbia,670 F 3d 1244 D C Cir 2011 9. Ileto v Glock Inc,565 F 3d 1126 9th Cir 2009 passim. McCarthy v Olin Corp,119 F 3d 148 2d Cir 1997 5,McCarthy v Sturm Ruger Co. 916 F Supp 366 S D N Y 1996 27,McDonald v City of Chicago.
561 U S 742 2010 7,Merrill v Navegar Inc,28 P 3d 116 Cal 2001 5 27. Michigan v Long,463 U S 1032 1983 31,N Y State Rifle Pistol Ass n v Cuomo. 804 F 3d 242 2d Cir 2015 8,NAACP v AcuSport Inc,271 F Supp 2d 435 E D N Y 2003 6. Obduskey v McCarthy Holthus LLP,139 S Ct 1029 2019 24. People v Arcadia Machine Tool Inc,No 4095 2003 WL 21184117 Cal.
Super Ct Apr 10 2003 27,San Diego Bldg Trades Council v. 359 U S 236 1959 29,Shew v Malloy,994 F Supp 2d 234 D Conn 2014 9. Smith Wesson Corp v City of Gary,875 N E 2d 422 Ind App 2007 12 20. Sportsmen s Boating Corp v Hensley,474 A 2d 780 Conn 1984 22. United States v Hayes,555 U S 415 2009 16 24,United States v Williams.
553 U S 285 2008 24,Whitman v Am Trucking Ass ns,531 U S 457 2001 26. Wyeth v Levine,555 U S 555 2009 24,15 U S C 7901 a passim. 15 U S C 7901 b 7 27 30 32,15 U S C 7902 a 7 32,15 U S C 7902 b 7 32. 15 U S C 7903 4 7,15 U S C 7903 5 passim,18 U S C 922 g 8. 18 U S C 922 m 8,18 U S C 922 n 8,28 U S C 1257 a 1 30.
Conn Gen Stat 42 110b a 3 10 22,CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITIES. 151 Cong Rec 17 371 2005 23 28,151 Cong Rec 18 073 2005 28. 151 Cong Rec 18 942 2005 32,151 Cong Rec 19 135 2005 32. 151 Cong Rec 23 261 2005 27 30,151 Cong Rec 23 279 2005 27 32. H R Rep No 109 124 2005 passim,SECONDARY AUTHORITIES.
Black s Law Dictionary 10th ed 2014 23,Vivian S Chu Cong Research Serv. R42871 The Protection of Lawful,Commerce in Arms Act An Overview. of Limiting Tort Liability of Gun,Manufacturers 2012 5. John Culhane This Lawsuit Could Change,How We Prosecute Mass Shootings. Politico Mar 18 2019 28,Nora Freeman Egnstrom David M.
Studdert Stanford Law Professors on,the Lawsuit Against Gun. Manufacturers in the Wake of the,Sandy Hook Massacre Stanford Law. School Mar 14 2019 28,Heidi Li Feldman Why the Latest Ruling. in the Sandy Hook Shooting Litigation,Matters Harv L Rev Blog Mar 18. Nicholas J Johnson Supply Restrictions,at the Margins of Heller and the.
Abortion Analogue 60 Hastings L J,1285 2009 9,Timothy D Lytton Halberstam v Daniel. and the Uncertain Future of Negligent,Marketing Claims Against Firearms. Manufacturers 64 Brook L Rev 681,Timothy D Lytton Tort Claims Against. Gun Manufacturers for Crime Related,Injuries 65 Mo L Rev 1 2000 5. Timony D Lytton Suing the Gun,Industry Timothy D Lytton ed 2005 6 30.
Timothy D Lytton Sandy Hook Lawsuit,Court Victory Opens Crack in Gun. Maker Immunity Shield The,Conversation Mar 15 2019 17 28. National Consumer Law Center,Protection in the States A 50 State. Evaluation of Unfair and Deceptive,Trade Practice Laws Mar 2018 10. Sarah Herman Peck Cong Research,Serv LSB10292 When Can the.
Firearm Industry Be Sued 2019 17,Recent Legislation Protection of Lawful. Commerce in Arms Act Pub L No,109 02 119 Stat 2095 2005 119 Harv. L Rev 1939 2006 6,Restatement Third of Torts 14 2005 25. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI,Remington Arms Company LLC and Remington. Outdoor Company Inc respectfully petition for a writ of. certiorari to review the judgment of the Supreme Court. of Connecticut,OPINIONS BELOW,The Supreme Court of Connecticut s opinion App.
infra 1a 155a is reported at 202 A 3d 262 The superior. court s decision to strike the amended complaint App. infra 156a 217a is unreported but is available at 2016. WL 8115354,STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION,The judgment of the Supreme Court of Connecticut. was entered on March 19 2019 On May 17 2019 Justice. Ginsburg extended the time in which to file a petition for. a writ of certiorari to and including August 1 2019 The. jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U S C. 1257 a See infra p 30 31,STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED. Pertinent statutory provisions are set forth in the ap. pendix to this petition App infra 220a 231a,INTRODUCTION. Congress enacted the Protection of Lawful,Commerce in Arms Act PLCAA to ensure that. firearms so central to American society that the, Founders safeguarded their ownership and use in the.
Bill of Rights would be regulated only through the. democratic process rather than the vagaries of litigation. Congress passed the PLCAA in 2005 in response to a. wave of lawsuits seeking to hold firearms manufacturers. and sellers liable for the harm caused by the misuse of. firearms by third parties including criminals 15 U S C. Although those lawsuits were largely unsuccessful on. the merits Congress found that the mere possibility of. imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is. solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal,system threatens the diminution of a basic. constitutional right and civil liberty invites the dissembly. and destabilization of other industries and economic. sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise,system and constitutes an unreasonable burden on. interstate and foreign commerce 15 U S C 7901 a 6, In other words this flood of litigation put the firearms. industry in danger of being overwhelmed by the cost of. defending itself H R Rep No 109 124 at 12 2005, Congress therefore granted manufacturers and sellers. broad immunity from lawsuits seeking damages and, other relief resulting from the criminal or unlawful.
misuse of firearms by third parties 15 U S C,Immunity under the PLCAA is subject to certain. limited exceptions One such exception allows actions to. proceed where a manufacturer or seller knowingly, violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale. or marketing of a firearm or ammunition and the, violation proximately caused the plaintiff s harm 15. U S C 7903 5 A iii This is known as the predicate, exception because liability requires a knowing violation. Supreme Court of the United States REMINGTON ARMS CO LLC ET AL Petitioners v On November 18 2016 the superior court entered judgment 2 The superior court s decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Connecticut which entered judgment on March 19 2019 in Soto v Bushmaster Firearms In ternational LLC Nos SC 19832 SC 19833 Conn On May 1 2019 the Connecticut

Related Books