Jump to content

Uvalde parents sue Daniel Defense et al


Euler

Recommended Posts

The case is Camacho v The Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District filed in the Federal District Court of Western Texas.

 

CNN

CNN said:

Parents of survivors of the Robb Elementary School massacre in Uvalde, Texas, have filed a federal lawsuit against multiple entities -- including the gun manufacturer, school district and city -- for a host of allegations, including negligence and recklessness.

...

Lawyers for the families say the manufacturer for the gunman's weapon employs aggressive marketing tactics that recklessly endanger children.

 

"Daniel Defense chooses not to do any studies evaluating the effects of their marketing strategies on the health and well-being of Americans and chose not to look at the cost to families and communities like Uvalde, Texas," said the complaint.

 

Days before the shooting, the complaint notes, the Georgia-based company tweeted an image of a toddler holding an assault-style weapon with the caption: "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

 

The claim also says Firequest International, Inc., which manufactures accessory trigger systems, similar to illegal bump stocks, sells its products to untrained civilians, young adults and minors in Uvalde. These types of devices allow semi-automatic rifles to fire more rapidly, similar to automatic weapons.

 

Oasis Outback, LLC, sold the gunman weapons and ammunition allegedly knowing he was a risk, the suit claims.

 

"The Uvalde school shooter's background check was clean, and Oasis Outback sold him the guns and ammunition knowing he was suspicious and likely dangerous," according to the legal document. "The store owner and his staff did not act on their suspicions and block the purchases or notify law enforcement."

...

The claim also says the city's police department failed to protect the victims by not following state mandated active shooter training.

 

The suit also faults Lt. Mariano Pargas, the city's acting police chief on the day of the massacre, as well as two other companies, claiming defects in their products were factors in the response to the shooting. Motorola Solutions, Inc.'s radio communications devices, which were used by some first responders, "were defective and unreasonably dangerous because they did not contain adequate warnings or instructions concerning failure during normal use," said the claim.

 

Lawyers also say Schneider Electric, the manufacturer of the door locking mechanisms used at the school, "failed to lock as designed after being shut."

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 9/29/2022 at 9:15 PM, Euler said:
CNN said:

Parents of survivors of the Robb Elementary School massacre in Uvalde, Texas, have filed a federal lawsuit against multiple entities -- including the gun manufacturer, school district and city -- for a host of allegations, including negligence and recklessness.

...

Lawyers also say Schneider Electric, the manufacturer of the door locking mechanisms used at the school, "failed to lock as designed after being shut."

...

 

On November 9, Camacho et al. dismissed Schneider Electric as a defendant (i.e., they're not suing Schneider anymore). Schneider had never responded to the lawsuit, anyway, at least not with any court filings.

 

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

One more parent is suing everybody for Uvalde.

 

Sandra Torres, mother of Elianha Torres (who was 10 years old when she was killed in the Uvalde shooting) is suing Daniel Defense, Oasis Outback (the FFL), Uvalde School District, Uvalde County, Uvalde School District PD, "Pete" Arredondo, and various other officers. The claims are basically "negligent" sale and transfer.

 

Docket

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two more cases of parents suing, this time on behalf of their still living children. The children's names are just initials, because they're minors.

 

C v Daniel Defense

C is apparently for Carillo, because the complaint lists the child's mother's name in full (Jasmine Carillo), but otherwise refers to the child as her son, MC.

 

P v Uvalde

The lawyers managed to keep the P confidential in this filing. The parents are not named in full.

 

Both are in the Federal District Court of Western Texas. Despite the different initials, they seem to have all the same plaintiffs. It's just that a different one is listed first.

 

Instead of one suit against Uvalde and Daniel Defense, like the previous two, these break up the suit into two: one against Uvalde, Uvalde police, various officers, other government agencies, and several hundred John/Jane Does; and one against Daniel Defense, Oasis Outback, and several hundred (different) John/Jane Does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

On February 2, the plaintiffs of the Camacho case (filed by a boatload of families, of which Camacho is merely the first named one) filed notice that they are withdrawing all complaints against all named defendants, including Daniel Defense (the firearm manufacturer), Oasis Outback (the local FFL), and Firequest (the online vendor), as well as Uvalde School District, the City of Uvalde, Uvalde County, and the Texas Department of Public Safety. They didn't give a reason.

 

The Torres case is still live, but not much appears to be happening there. The Torres case is just the Torres family, independently from the Camacho families, suing everyone.

 

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2023 at 6:48 PM, Euler said:

On February 2, the plaintiffs of the Camacho case (filed by a boatload of families, of which Camacho is merely the first named one) filed notice that they are withdrawing all complaints against all named defendants, including Daniel Defense (the firearm manufacturer), Oasis Outback (the local FFL), and Firequest (the online vendor), as well as Uvalde School District, the City of Uvalde, Uvalde County, and the Texas Department of Public Safety. They didn't give a reason.

 

The Torres case is still live, but not much appears to be happening there. The Torres case is just the Torres family, independently from the Camacho families, suing everyone.

 

Hmmm ... I wonder if they took a nuisance settlement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2022 at 6:49 PM, RECarry said:

Waiting for psych med manufacturers and associated psychiatrists to be sued. Crickets.

 

Guns don't ***create*** blank-stare soul-less murderous zombies. Weird drugs do that.

And so do dehumanizing philosophies - which political types push.

Also creating sociopaths by telling parents that they should not discipline their children at all does this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2023 at 7:09 PM, 2A4Cook said:

Hmmm ... I wonder if they took a nuisance settlement?

 

Generally a settlement would have been noted by the court and the case dismissed with prejudice due to the settlement agreement terms.  The plantiffs just ending the case without prejudice, doesn't really lean towards there being a settlement, IMO.

 

Of course I could be wrong, but I suspect something else is going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/6/2023 at 12:45 AM, Flynn said:

 

Generally a settlement would have been noted by the court and the case dismissed with prejudice due to the settlement agreement terms.  The plantiffs just ending the case without prejudice, doesn't really lean towards there being a settlement, IMO.

 

Of course I could be wrong, but I suspect something else is going on.

I know all this, but the court simply letting them withdraw the complaints without a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice seems odd, unless this was discussed in front of the court without objection from defendants.  Clearly, though, the complaint is frivilous and without any foundation in law ... could also be they just wanted to avoid possible sanctions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The judge in the Camacho case still hasn't ruled on the voluntary dismissal.

 

Meanwhile the Torres case is starting to move. On February 14, Daniel Defense responded to the complaint.

 

Response said:

...

... Daniel Defense states that Plaintiffs' Original Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action upon which relief may be granted against Daniel Defense.

 

... Daniel Defense states that all of Plaintiffs' claims against it are barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

 

... Daniel Defense states the damages to Plaintiffs, which are specifically denied, were the proximate result of an independent, intervening, or superseding causal force, thereby barring recovery herein.

 

... if Plaintiffs were injured and damaged as alleged, which is specifically denied, then any recovery they may have against Daniel Defense for such injuries must be proportionately reduced in accordance with the fault of third persons or parties, including but not limited to Salvador Ramos, consistent with the principles of comparative fault in force in this jurisdiction.

 

... Daniel Defense pleads its entitlement to have the jury consider the percentage of fault of all claimants, responsible third parties, and settling persons as required by TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE ... In accordance with this section, Daniel Defense may not be held jointly and severally liable for any amount of damages herein, unless the percentage of responsibility of defendant, when compared with that of each responsible third party and each settling party is greater than fifty percent (50%).

 

... in the event Plaintiffs settle with any party who may be responsible, in whole or in part and or any of the alleged injuries and/or damages, Daniel Defense pleads its entitlement to have such person designated as a settling person ...

 

... in the event Plaintiffs file a non-suit or dismiss any party, who may be responsible in whole or in part for any of the alleged injuries and/or damages, Daniel Defense pleads its entitlement to join and to file cross[-]claims for contribution against such dismissed party and/or to designate such party as a responsible third party ...

 

... Daniel Defense is entitled to all available credits and/or offsets provided by the TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE and under Texas law and/or any other applicable law and/or statute.

 

... Daniel Defense states that Plaintiffs here in suffered no damages as a result of Daniel Defense's acts, if any.

 

... Daniel Defense maintains that Plaintiffs' claim for damages is subject to the restrictions found in TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE ...

 

... Daniel Defense states the imposition of punitive or exemplary damages against it in this cause would be fundamentally unfair and would violate the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Texas ...

 

... Daniel Defense maintains Plaintiffs' claim for exemplary damages is subject to the restrictions found in Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code ...

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What cases, if any,  have been settled at trial in favor of the plaintiffs. Ive read of marketing practices being used against defendants. The antis keep hoping for tobacco sized judgments to cripple the industry. Without federal protections that would have happened a while ago.

Schools are easy targets for nuts, as long as they keep going after the tool

and nothing else our kids with remain in the crosshairs. They never storm police stations, that should tell those who can do something volumes.

 .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2023 at 11:59 AM, lilguy said:

What cases, if any,  have been settled at trial in favor of the plaintiffs. Ive read of marketing practices being used against defendants. ...

 

For 2A liability cases, I am unaware that any of them have been resolved at trial. Remington is the elephant in the room, but that was settled out of court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2023 at 8:03 PM, Euler said:

On February 23, Torres filed a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice in the Del Rio division of Western Texas Federal District Court so that they can refile in the Austin division of Western Texas Federal District Court.

 

On February 24, Daniel Defense responded, opposing the motion as judge-shopping.

 

On 12/7/2022 at 9:32 PM, Euler said:

Two more cases of parents suing, this time on behalf of their still living children. The children's names are just initials, because they're minors.

 

C v Daniel Defense

C is apparently for Carillo, because the complaint lists the child's mother's name in full (Jasmine Carillo), but otherwise refers to the child as her son, MC.

 

P v Uvalde

The lawyers managed to keep the P confidential in this filing. The parents are not named in full.

...

 

On March 2, Torres plaintiffs withdrew their motion to dismiss to refile. The only leg they really had to stand on were a civil suits (MC v Daniel Defense; JP v Uvalde School District) in the Austin division, but the Austin cases just got transferred to Del Rio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
Camacho v Uvalde appears to be a dead case. The plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal back in February. The defendants haven't even bothered to respond. Presumably the court is waiting for a response. Sooner or later it'll get dismissed.

Meanwhile ...

On December 15, Pedro Arredondo filed a motion to hold a status hearing on Torres v Daniel Defense.

Torres has been similarly dead, but for a different reason. The Torres plaintiffs have gone through a lawyer per month or two. High turnover in legal representation is usually a sign that no lawyer wants to work for a client. I'm speculating, but that could be the reason here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...