City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 00 CV 3641.
| Citation | 401 F.Supp.2d 244 |
| Decision Date | 02 December 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 00 CV 3641.,00 CV 3641. |
| Parties | The CITY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. BERETTA U.S.A. CORP., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, by Melanie Ash, Richard J. Costa, Eric Proshansky, Gail P. Rubin, New York, NY, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Legal Action Project, by Jonathan
E. Lowy, Elizabeth Schickedanz Haile, Brian J. Siebel, Dennis A. Henigan, Washington, DC, Center for Constitutional Litigation, by Robert S. Peck, Washington DC, Thelen Reid & Priest, LLP, by Michel S. Elkin, Gabriel Mark Nugent, New York, NY, For Plaintiff City of New York.
Gordon, Feinblatt, Rothman, Hoffberger & Hollander, LLC, by Lawrence S. Greenwald, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, by Jonann E. Chiles, Jamie Huffman Jones, Little Rock, AK, Renzulli, Pisciotti & Renzulli, LLP, by John F. Renzulli, Leonard S. Rosenbaum, Scott Charles Allan, New York, NY, for Defendant Browning Arms Co.
Jones Day, by Thomas E. Fennell, Mark R. Hall, Joseph Anthony Strazzeri, Kelly J. Hunt, Patrick Carew, Paula Reichenstein, Michael L. Rice, Patrick G. Broderick, Dallas, TX, Pino & Associates, LLP, by Thomas E. Healy, White Plains, NY, for Defendant Colt's Manufacturing Co., Inc.
Budd Larner, P.C., by Bridgette E. Eckerson, Budd Larner, Prescott L. Nottingham, Timothy A. Bumann, Jennifer C. Kane, Kathleen C. Marchetti, J. Clayton Cheshire, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants Forjas Taurus, S.A. and Taurus International Manufacturing, Inc.
Renzulli, Pisciotti & Renzulli, LLP, by Christopher Renzulli, John F. Renzulli, Scott C. Allan, New York, NY, for Defendant Glock, Inc.
Tarics & Carrington, PC, by Michael J. Zomcik, Houston, TX, for Defendant Phoenix Arms.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, by Robert Laurent Joyce, New York, NY, for Defendant Sigarms, Inc.
Greenberg Traurig, LLP, by Alan Mansfield, New York, NY, Pietragallo, Bosick & Gordon, by Clem C. Trischler, Robert R. Leight, Pittsburgh, PA, Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP, by Stacey Elaine Deere, Jeffrey Scott Nelson, Tina Marie Schaefer, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant Smith & Wesson Corp.
Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, LLP, by James P. Dorr, Sarah Liddell Olson, Chicago, IL, Gallagher Gosseen Faller Kaplan & Crowle, by William Edward Vita, Garden City, NY, for Defendant Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc.
The Chiafullo White Group, LLP, by Christopher M. Chiafullo, Watchung, NJ, for Defendants AcuSport Corp.; Alamo Leather Goods, Inc.; Bangers, L.P.; Bill Hicks & Co.; Brazas Sporting Arms, Inc.; Camfour Inc.; Chattanooga Shooting Supplies, Inc.; Davidson's Supply Co., Inc.; Dixie Shooters Supply, Inc.; Ellet Brothers, Inc.; Euclid Ave. Sales Co.; Faber Brothers, Inc.; Glen Zanders Fur and Sporting Goods Co.; Hicks, Inc.; Kiesler Police Supply, Inc.; Lew Horton Distributing Co.; Lipsey's Inc.; MKS Supply Co.; Riley's, Inc.; RSR Group, Inc.; Ron Shirk's Shooter's Supplies, Inc.; Southern Ohio Gun, Inc.; Sports South, Inc.; Valor Corp.; Walter Craig, Inc.; Williams Shooter's Supplies.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Office of Chief Counsel, by Barry Orlow, Esq., Washington DC, for Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
United States Attorney's Office, Eastern District of New York, by Elliot M. Schachner, Brooklyn, NY, for United States.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ....................................................................251
II. Complaint .......................................................................251
III. Applicability of Act ............................................................258
A. Arguments of the Parties ....................................................258
1. Defendants' Contention that the Act Bars the Instant Litigation .........258
2. Plaintiff's Contention that the Instant Litigation is Allowed Under an
Exception to the Act ..................................................258
B. Applicability of Exception to the Instant Litigation ........................259
1. The Act .................................................................259
2. New York Penal Law Section 240.45 .......................................261
3. Requirement of a Federal or State Law "Applicable to" the Sale or
Marketing of Firearms .................................................261
a. Statutory Interpretation ............................................261
b. Power of Courts to Interpret Laws ...................................264
c. Legislative History .................................................266
4. Requirement of an Action "in Which" a Manufacturer or Seller
Violated a State or Federal Statute ...................................268
a. Time When Exception is to be Applied ................................268
b. Lack of Need for Prior Decision that Penal Law 240.45 was
Violated ..........................................................268
c. Adequacy of the Complaint to Raise Exception Issue ..................270
C. Conclusion as to Application ................................................271
IV. Constitutionality of Act ........................................................271
A. Introduction ................................................................271
B. Regional Conflicts ..........................................................272
1. History .................................................................272
2. The Present Conflict ....................................................273
3. Respect for Balancing by Congress .......................................276
C. Commerce Clause .............................................................280
1. Dormant Commerce Clause .................................................280
2. Legislative History of Act ..............................................281
3. Recent Commerce Clause Cases ............................................283
D. General Congressional Powers ................................................288
1. Preemption ..............................................................288
2. Deprivation of Existing Rights; Ex Post Facto ...........................289
3. Retroactivity ...........................................................289
4. Effect on Pending Cases .................................................290
E. First Amendment .............................................................293
F. Second Amendment ............................................................293
G. Tenth and Eleventh Amendments ...............................................293
H. Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments .............................................294
1. Due Process and Equal Protection ........................................294
2. Section 5 ...............................................................295
I. Conclusion as to Constitutionality ..........................................297
V. Stays ...........................................................................297
VI. Conclusion; Certification of Interlocutory Appeal; Stay .........................298
APPENDIX — Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act .................................298
The City of New York ("City") sues the main suppliers of handguns in the United States ("Gun Industry") seeking injunctive relief and abatement of an alleged public nuisance caused by the Gun Industry's negligent and reckless merchandising. Standing to bring the action is based upon the City's police powers, its public health responsibilities (handguns are the cause of death to a majority of persons in one age-ethnic group) and New York State substantive law and equity. The likelihood of continuing harm to the City and its residents from negligent merchandising of handguns outside the state supports standing. See, e.g., Daniel A. Farber, Uncertainty as a Basis for Standing, 33 Hofstra L.Rev. 1123 (2005).
After extensive discovery and pretrial motion practice, trial was scheduled to begin on November 28, 2005. See Docket Entries to 1021. Prior decisions had demonstrated a factual basis for the City's suit. See N.A.A.C.P. v. Acusport, 271 F.Supp.2d 435 (E.D.N.Y.2003) (); City of New York v. Beretta, 315 F.Supp.2d 256 (E.D.N.Y.2004) ().
On October 26, 2005, the President of the United States approved the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Pub.L. No. 109-92, 119 Stat. 2095 ("PLCAA" or "Act"). The Act, which was immediately effective, requires that a "qualified civil liability action that is pending on the date of enactment... shall be immediately dismissed." PLCAA § 3(b) (). The stated purpose is to promptly terminate existing and prevent future "qualified civil liability actions," as defined by the Act.
On the afternoon of October 26, 2005, hours after the Act was signed into law, Defendants moved for a permanent stay and for dismissal. See Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss ( ) 1 (Docket No. 997). They contend that the Act is constitutional. See Defs.' Reply Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss ( ) 14-48 (Docket No. 1032).
Dismissal is opposed by the City on the grounds that (1) the Act is inapplicable because the case falls within an exception to a "qualified civil liability action," and (2), if the Act is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (Mtbe) Products, MDL 1358(SAS).
...v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272, 281, 107 S.Ct. 683, 93 L.Ed.2d 613 (1987). 39. Id. at 90, 110 S.Ct. 2270. 40. City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 401 F.Supp.2d 244, 288 (E.D.N.Y.2005) (quotations 41. English, 496 U.S. at 79, 110 S.Ct. 2270 (citing Florida Lime, 373 U.S. at 142-43, 83 S.Ct. 1......
-
City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
...finding that the claim restriction provisions of the PLCAA did not require dismissal of the case at bar. City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 401 F.Supp.2d 244 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). The District Court held that, "[b]y its plain meaning, New York [Penal Law § ] 240.45 satisfies the language ......
-
City of New York v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc.
...§ 2341. As courts have repeatedly held, the term "applicable" means "capable of being applied." See City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 401 F.Supp.2d 244, 261 (E.D.N.Y. 2005); Snyder v. Buck, 75 F.Supp. 902, 907 (D.D.C.1948). Section 471 is capable of being applied to the transactions......
-
U.S. v. Morrison
...tax or a "collected" tax, to trigger a violation. The term "applicable" means "capable of being applied." City of N.Y. v. Beretta, 401 F.Supp.2d 244, 261 (E.D.N.Y.2005) (noting common dictionary definitions of word "applicable.").[36] Defendant's attempt to equate applicability and enforcea......
-
The Limitations of 'Sic Utere Tuo...': Planning by Private Law Devices
...The PLCAA required that any pending “qualified civil liability action” be dismissed. In City of New York v. Baretta U.S.A. Corp., 401 F. Supp. 2d 244 (E.D.N.Y. 2005), the court, while refusing to find the PLCAA unconstitutional, held that the lawsuit could proceed because it fit within one ......