Highland Park mob v Smith & Wesson - Product marketing & liability

[Upholder]

Lawyer: "Smith and Wesson deceptively marketed its firearm as being associated with the military and police, when it is in fact not."

 

That's a STUNNING admission by the plaintiffs' lawyer in front of Easterbrook.

[Euler]

On April 8, CA7 ruled that the case had been improperly removed from state court to federal court. The suit was brought against S&W, the gun shops that sold the guns that Crimo Jr. used, Crimo Jr., and Crimo Sr. The Crimos did not consent to the removal. Since all parties on S&W's side had to consent to the removal, the case should not have been removed.

Somewhat bizarrely (IMO) CA7 said that S&W removing the case to federal court was intended make the litigation "needlessly costly" to the mob. The case has been remanded back to district court to decide if S&W must reimburse the plaintiffs for the legal expenses associated with the improper removal. The case will then proceed back to state court for litigation. However, CA7 narrowed the case against S&W.

Against S&W, the mob had previously claimed (1) that the M&P-15 is a machine gun which is improperly advertised and (2) that S&W assisted in the mass shooting by providing Crimo Jr. with the weapon that he used. CA7 ruled that these are not separate legal claims, but that they are separate legal theories for why S&W is liable for the shooting. The only real claim against S&W is that it furnished Crimo Jr. with the weapon, whether the weapon was a machine gun or not.

I'm not sure how much the state court will appreciate the federal court deciding what the claim against S&W is.

[davel501]

On 4/8/2024 at 8:15 PM, Euler said:

On April 8, CA7 ruled that the case had been improperly removed from state court to federal court. The suit was brought against S&W, the gun shops that sold the guns that Crimo Jr. used, Crimo Jr., and Crimo Sr. The Crimos did not consent to the removal. Since all parties on S&W's side had to consent to the removal, the case should not have been removed.

Somewhat bizarrely (IMO) CA7 said that S&W removing the case to federal court was intended make the litigation "needlessly costly" to the mob. The case has been remanded back to district court to decide if S&W must reimburse the plaintiffs for the legal expenses associated with the improper removal. The case will then proceed back to state court for litigation. However, CA7 narrowed the case against S&W.

Against S&W, the mob had previously claimed (1) that the M&P-15 is a machine gun which is improperly advertised and (2) that S&W assisted in the mass shooting by providing Crimo Jr. with the weapon that he used. CA7 ruled that these are not separate legal claims, but that they are separate legal theories for why S&W is liable for the shooting. The only real claim against S&W is that it furnished Crimo Jr. with the weapon, whether the weapon was a machine gun or not.

I'm not sure how much the state court will appreciate the federal court deciding what the claim against S&W is.

 

PLCAA seems like it would preclude that remaining claim. 

[RECarry]

Isn't Highland Park culpable?

HP dislikes firearms and promotes that citizens can rely on the police for protection.

Highland Park failed to secure the parade route by allowing access to the rooftop perch the shooter used.

It wasn't the gun as much as the advantageous position the shooter used to attack a public event.

[Tvandermyde]

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2024/D04-08/C:23-3000:J:Easterbrook:aut:T:fnOp:N:3192599:S:0

 

 

[yurimodin]

On 4/9/2024 at 10:00 AM, Tvandermyde said:

https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2024/D04-08/C:23-3000:J:Easterbrook:aut:T:fnOp:N:3192599:S:0

 

 

TLDR?

[Euler]

On April 9, 2024 at 11:26 AM CDT, yurimodin said:→

TLDR?

On April 8, 2024 at 08:15 PM CDT, Euler said:→

On April 8, CA7 ruled that the case had been improperly removed from state court to federal court. The suit was brought against S&W, the gun shops that sold the guns that Crimo Jr. used, Crimo Jr., and Crimo Sr. The Crimos did not consent to the removal. Since all parties on S&W's side had to consent to the removal, the case should not have been removed.

Somewhat bizarrely (IMO) CA7 said that S&W removing the case to federal court was intended make the litigation "needlessly costly" to the mob. The case has been remanded back to district court to decide if S&W must reimburse the plaintiffs for the legal expenses associated with the improper removal. The case will then proceed back to state court for litigation. However, CA7 narrowed the case against S&W.

Against S&W, the mob had previously claimed (1) that the M&P-15 is a machine gun which is improperly advertised and (2) that S&W assisted in the mass shooting by providing Crimo Jr. with the weapon that he used. CA7 ruled that these are not separate legal claims, but that they are separate legal theories for why S&W is liable for the shooting. The only real claim against S&W is that it furnished Crimo Jr. with the weapon, whether the weapon was a machine gun or not.
...

Also, the docket and thus the ruling ...

On October 21, 2023 at 10:41 PM CDT, Euler said:→

...
On October 16, Smith & Wesson appealed to the 7th Federal Circuit Court (docket) to vacate the order to remand.
...

[davel501]

On 4/9/2024 at 3:04 PM, Euler said:

 The only real claim against S&W is that it furnished Crimo Jr. with the weapon, whether the weapon was a machine gun or not.

 

Didn't the ISP technically provide the firearm to him? The FFL released the firearm to him at their direction.

[Euler]

On April 8, 2024 at 08:15 PM CDT, Euler said:→

...
Somewhat bizarrely (IMO) CA7 said that S&W removing the case to federal court was intended make the litigation "needlessly costly" to the mob. The case has been remanded back to district court to decide if S&W must reimburse the plaintiffs for the legal expenses associated with the improper removal. ...
...

On April 22, the mob filed a bill for their costs of $166.50 for printing/copying the paperwork.

I was wondering how they were going to do that, considering that Everytown is already providing the lawyers for free.

[Euler]

On April 30, the district court issued two orders.

1. Regarding costs, the court ordered parties to submit motions by May 10, with responses due by May 17.

2. Regarding Crimo's motion to stay the case due to his bankruptcy, the court said:

Order said:

... There is nothing to stay, because this case isn't going to stay here. Plus, an automatic stay under the bankruptcy code is, well, automatic. It is like the sun rising. ...

[Euler]

On May 2, plaintiffs filed a motion in district court to remand the complaint to state court while the federal court retains jurisdiction over the issue of fees.

Since the complaint doesn't depend on removal fees, I'm sure they'll get it.

[Euler]

On May 10, the mob's lawyers filed for reimbursement of their fees in district court, each part of the consolidated case as a separate exhibit. It's a boatload of money that they want S&W to pay, despite the fact that they were providing their services to their clients for free.

[mab22]

The clowns need to be paid for the circus. 

[TomKoz]

On 5/14/2024 at 6:58 PM, Euler said:

On May 10, the mob's lawyers filed for reimbursement of their fees in district court, each part of the consolidated case as a separate exhibit. It's a boatload of money that they want S&W to pay, despite the fact that they were providing their services to their clients for free.

How can that be right ?

 

The fight is between the plaintiffs and the defendants - not the attorneys.

IF it is known as fact that one side is getting legal counsel pro bono and a judge awards legal “fees” to the plaintiff or defendant  - said legal fees should be ZERO !!!

 

If the attorneys get anything it’s FUBAR.

 

[davel501]

On 5/14/2024 at 11:13 PM, TomKoz said:

How can that be right ?

 

The fight is between the plaintiffs and the defendants - not the attorneys.

IF it is known as fact that one side is getting legal counsel pro bono and a judge awards legal “fees” to the plaintiff or defendant  - said legal fees should be ZERO !!!

 

If the attorneys get anything it’s FUBAR.

 

 

Our side does the same thing. It's just the game. 

[Euler]

When "our side" does something similar, it's because SAF or FPC or some organization like that is also one of the plaintiffs. In these cases, Everytown is not a plaintiff. It's just providing the lawyers (for free).

In any case ...

On May 20, the district judge remanded the cases back to Lake County Circuit Court, but retained jurisdiction over deciding reimbursement of the legal fees associated with the removal.

[davel501]

On 5/20/2024 at 8:54 PM, Euler said:

When "our side" does something similar, it's because SAF or FPC or some organization like that is also one of the plaintiffs. In these cases, Everytown is not a plaintiff. It's just providing the lawyers (for free).

In any case ...

On May 20, the district judge remanded the cases back to Lake County Circuit Court, but retained jurisdiction over deciding reimbursement of the legal fees associated with the removal.

 

I was thinking about Schoenthal v. Raoul when I wrote that but there's a bunch more examples. 

[TomKoz]

On 5/20/2024 at 8:54 PM, Euler said:

When "our side" does something similar, it's because SAF or FPC or some organization like that is also one of the plaintiffs. In these cases, Everytown is not a plaintiff. It's just providing the lawyers (for free).

In any case ...

On May 20, the district judge remanded the cases back to Lake County Circuit Court, but retained jurisdiction over deciding reimbursement of the legal fees associated with the removal.

No matter which side does it … it still ain’t just right !

 

Legal fees should not be awarded to either side (plaintiff or defendant) - especially awarded directly to their attorneys - if said attorneys agreed prior to the case being followed that attorneys would provide services for free.

 

 

[Euler]

Chicago Sun-Times said:→

...
The judge on Tuesday [April 1] allowed the lawsuits to proceed against Smith & Wesson on their claims of unfair business practices and negligence claims, but he denied the claims of deceptive business practices. The cases against the gun shops were allowed to proceed in their entirety.