Uvalde parents sue Daniel Defense et al

[Euler]

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."

...

[Euler]

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 November 11, 2022 at 10:56 PM by Euler

[Euler]

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

[RECarry]

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.

[G214me]

How about some lawsuits against all those that fight to keep schools soft targets ? I lost a friend to a drunk driver his family never sued Buick or Budweiser. 

[Euler]

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.

[yurimodin]

how about some criminal charges for the cops who wouldn't stop him and then prevented others from stopping him for over an hour.

[Euler]

On December 29, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. (I haven't read it.)

[Euler]

On January 12, Mandy Gutierrez (principal of Robb Elementary School) filed a motion to be dismissed from the case as a defendant.

 

On January 24, Camacho (first named plaintiff) stipulated agreement.

[Euler]

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 February 6, 2023 at 12:53 AM by Euler

[2A4Cook]

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?

[JTHunter]

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

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

 

Or maybe, they finally got some accurate and appropriate legal "advice".

[BobPistol]

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.

 

[Flynn]

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.

[2A4Cook]

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.

[cybermgk]

My guess is Camacho et al were hoping for a nuisance payout.  But, Daniel Defense was fighting it, and legal defense this would be a long drawn out EXPENSIVE case, that would go nowhere.

 

OR,

 

A bigger dog law firm wants to take up the case

[Euler]

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 ...

...

[lilguy]

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.

 .

[Euler]

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.

[Euler]

Torres has filed an amended complaint. One difference I notice in recent filings is that the lawyers for Torres associate themselves in the filings with Everytown. The lawyers in the Camacho filings have not.

[Euler]

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.

[Euler]

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.

[Euler]

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.

[Euler]

On March 27, the court finally terminated the Camacho case (without prejudice).

Also on March 27, Daniel Defense renewed its motion to dismiss the Torres case.

[Euler]

On May 24, Corina Camacho renewed her federal lawsuit against the Uvalde school district, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and 100 "John Doe" cops. According to the news article, she (along with other families) renewed a (separate) lawsuit against Daniel Defense in Uvalde County Court (38th District Court of Texas). The TX state court appears not to make its dockets available online.

CBS News said:→

...
The wrongful death lawsuits come just two days after the same group of 19 families reached a $2 million settlement with the city of Uvalde over the May 24, 2022, Robb Elementary School massacre, which killed 19 students and two teachers.

One of the two lawsuits was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court against both Activision and Meta -- Instagram's parent company. The second lawsuit, against Daniel Defense, was filed in Uvalde District Court.
...
Friday's lawsuits claim that Instagram, Activision and Daniel Defense have been "partnering ... in a scheme that preys upon insecure, adolescent boys," attorneys said in a news release.

Attorneys claim that Meta and Activision "enabled and emboldened firearm manufacturers' efforts to expand the market for their weapons by granting unprecedented, direct and 24/7 access to children."

The lawsuits allege that the gunman, on his 18th birthday, purchased the AR-15 used in the Uvalde shooting because "he was targeted and cultivated online by Instagram, Activision and Daniel Defense. This three-headed monster knowingly exposed him to the weapon, conditioned him to see it as a tool to solve his problems and trained him to use it," [attorney Josh] Koskoff said in a statement.

According to the lawsuits, the Uvalde gunman downloaded "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare" in November 2021, and had been playing previous iterations of "Call of Duty" since he was 15 years old. The video game prominently features a model of the AR-15, known as DDM4V7, that was used in the shooting, the lawsuits allege.

"Simultaneously, on Instagram, the shooter was being courted through explicit, aggressive marketing," attorneys said. "In addition to hundreds of images depicting and venerating the thrill of combat, Daniel Defense used Instagram to extol the illegal, murderous use of its weapons."

On April 27, 2022, attorneys say, the gunman created an account with Daniel Defense and added a DDM4V7 to his online cart. Then on May 16, 2022, just 23 minutes after midnight on his 18th birthday, he purchased the weapon -- just eight days before the Uvalde shooting.
...
"Instagram creates a connection between ... an adolescent ... and the gun and a gun company," Koskoff said. "And nobody exploited Instagram for this purpose more than Daniel Defense. If Instagram can prevent people from posting pictures of their private parts, they can prevent people from posting pictures of an AR-15. And of course, Instagram doesn't care. They don't care. All they care about is driving traffic and generating attention, drawing attention and getting their ad revenue."
...

The federal lawsuit is Camacho v The Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District.

Complaint said:

INTRODUCTION

...
... Texas active shooter training requires officers to follow active shooter training and immediately neutralize the active shooter. Instead, the 376 officers who responded to Robb Elementary School stood by taking no action against the shooter, and instead locking down and containing the children with the shooter for one hour, fourteen minutes allowing the shooter to torture and terrify wounded and dying children and to find and kill children who were trying to hide.
...
... Ninety-one TXDPS officers responded to Robb Elementary School on May 24, 2022, while the School District police were only five on scene. ...
...
TXDPS has fought the public disclosure of its own officers' body camera footage, radio channel recordings, dispatch logs, and officer interviews and investigations. This lawsuit seeks to end that cover-up.
...

VIII. RELIEF SOUGHT

Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter a judgment as follows:

1. A declaratory judgment that defendants' conduct detailed herein was a violation of plaintiff's rights under the Constitutions and laws of the United States and Texas;
2. To the extent that the Court finds that Defendants' conduct was authorized by custom, policy, or practice, and/or the inadequate training, supervision, instruction and discipline, a declaratory judgment that those customs, policies, or practices, and/or the inadequate trainings, supervisions, instructions, and disciplines are unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the analogous provisions of the Texas Constitution;
3. Permanent injunctive relief to preclude similar acts by defendants at future gatherings;
4. An award of past and future economic damages against all Defendants for the harms sustained by Plaintiffs in an amount to be determined according to proof at the time of trial;
5. An award of general damages against Defendants, and each of them, for the physical, mental, and emotional damages, past and future, according to proof at the time of trial;
6. An award of punitive and exemplary damages against the Defendants in an amount to be determined according to proof at the time of trial;
7. An award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and any other applicable provisions; and
8. Costs of suit and pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law.

...

X. SPOLIATION

Plaintiffs require and demand that Defendants preserve and maintain all evidence pertaining to any claim or defense related to the Uvalde school shooting or other violations made the basis of the Complaint and the alleged damages, including statements, photographs, videotapes, audiotapes, surveillance, security tapes, business or medical records, incident reports, telephone records, emails, text messages, electronic data/information, and any other evidence. Failure to maintain such items will constitute "spoliation" of evidence, which will necessitate use of the spoliation inference rule -- an inference or presumption that any negligent or intentional destruction of evidence was done because the evidence was unfavorable to the spoliator's case.

I like relief b, effectively, to the extent anything justifies their inaction, declare that justification unconstitutional. I understand the sentiment, but that's quite an uphill battle.

I've posted on it before, but very few states make dereliction of duty a crime. (Illinois doesn't, for example.) States that do make it a crime make it a misdemeanor. This lawsuit is not a criminal prosecution, but absent a criminal act they're going to have to rely on community outrage for a favorable verdict. Community outrage probably won't withstand appeal.

Edited May 25, 2024 at 01:01 AM by Euler