Trial News

The U.S. Supreme Court denied a certiorari petition by Remington Arms seeking to overturn a Connecticut Supreme Court decision allowing the families of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting to pursue a state law unfair trade practices claim against the gun manufacturer. Earlier this year, the state high court ruled that the plaintiffs’ improper marketing and advertising claim was not preempted by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which generally immunizes firearms manufacturers, distributors, and sellers from liability when third parties use their products to commit crimes, as Trial News previously reported. (Remington Arms Co., LLC v. Soto, No. 19-168 (U.S. cert denied Nov. 12, 2019).)

The state high court held that the plaintiffs’ claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act fell within the “predicate exception” of the PLCAA, which provides for civil liability when “a manufacturer or seller of a [firearm] knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the [firearm]” that proximately caused a plaintiff’s injuries. Focusing on the meaning and scope of the term “applicable,” the court ruled that it can be interpreted broadly since Congress did not narrow this exception with language such as “directly” or “expressly.” It further noted that the exception specifically mentions marketing and that when the PLCAA was passed, no federal statute governing the marketing of firearms existed that would preempt a state law. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in “unethical, oppressive, immoral, and unscrupulous” marketing and advertising that encouraged unlawful use of the gun.

In the cert petition, the defendants argued that the Connecticut high court interpreted the predicate exception too broadly and that its interpretation has been rejected by federal courts that have considered the matter. They contended that allowing this broad interpretation would effectively “swallow the PLCAA’s immunity rule” and allow the types of claims the statute was intended to preempt. The defendants argued that general tort liability theories are preempted by the PLCAA, regardless of whether they happen to be codified in a state statute.

In their reply brief, the plaintiffs argued that the Court did not have jurisdiction to review the ruling because it stemmed from an interlocutory appeal, not a final judgment. The plaintiffs also rejected the defendants’ argument that a split of authority exists on this issue, explaining that federal courts have narrowly construed the predicate exception for these types of claims, and they rejected the claim that the Connecticut Supreme Court’s interpretation of “applicable” was too broad. Instead, the plaintiffs contended, the court’s reading was in line with the predicate exception’s language, and if Congress had intended to narrow the category of statutes that could apply, it easily could have added wording to that effect.

Bridgeport, Conn., attorney Joshua Koskoff, who represents the plaintiffs, said, “The families are just universally happy with this result. They have wanted nothing more out of this case than to shed light on the conduct of the manufacturer of the weapon that was the source of taking the lives of their loved ones.”

The case currently is in the discovery phase in Connecticut state court.