Gilbert v. U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives

Citation306 F.Supp.3d 776
Decision Date23 January 2018
Docket NumberCivil Action No. TDC–15–2127
Parties Charles Richard Alsop GILBERT, Jr., Burgandy Park Associates, LLC, Indoor Range Operating Company, LLC, trading as Gilbert's Indoor Range, Bryon Gossard, and Gilbert Indoor Range, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, the United States of America, Gretchen Arlington, in her official capacity and personal capacity, Engage Armament, Theodore Sabate, Andrew Raymond and Greg Miller, Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)

306 F.Supp.3d 776

Charles Richard Alsop GILBERT, Jr., Burgandy Park Associates, LLC, Indoor Range Operating Company, LLC, trading as Gilbert's Indoor Range, Bryon Gossard, and Gilbert Indoor Range, LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, the United States of America, Gretchen Arlington, in her official capacity and personal capacity, Engage Armament, Theodore Sabate, Andrew Raymond and Greg Miller, Defendants.

Civil Action No. TDC–15–2127

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

Signed January 23, 2018


306 F.Supp.3d 780

John M. Shoreman, McFadden and Shoreman, Athanasios T. Tsimpedes, Tsimpedes Law Firm, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Molissa Heather Farber, US Attorney's Office, Baltimore, MD, David A. Martella, Barry H. Helfand, Barry H. Helfand PA, Rockville, MD, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THEODORE D. CHUANG, United States District Judge

The Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"), Pub. L. No. 90–618, 82 Stat. 1213 (1968), requires any individual seeking to engage in the business of selling firearms to first obtain a Federal Firearms License ("FFL") from the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF"). 18 U.S.C. § 923(a) (2012). Plaintiffs Charles Gilbert and Bryon Gossard, along with limited liability corporations established to operate their various businesses, have filed suit seeking damages for and injunctive relief relating to the ATF's denial of Gossard's FFL application. Plaintiffs assert a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and multiple state law tort claims. Pending before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss, one by Defendants the United States of America, the ATF, and Gretchen Arlington, an ATF investigator (the "Federal Defendants"), and one by Defendants Engage Armament and Andrew Raymond (the "Private Defendants"). Having reviewed the pleadings, briefs, and other submitted materials, the Court finds that no hearing is necessary. See D. Md. Local R. 105.6. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motions are GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Gilbert is the owner of the Gilbert Indoor Range (the "Range"), a members-only shooting range located in Rockville, Maryland. Gilbert is also a former FFL holder whose many GCA violations cost him the ability to sell firearms. His decade-long attempt to regain an FFL, either for himself or for a proxy, is recounted in detail in Gossard v. Fronczak , 206 F.Supp.3d 1053, 1055–56 (D. Md. 2016). This case is one of a long line of legal

306 F.Supp.3d 781

challenges brought by Gilbert in an effort to resuscitate his former firearms dealing business.

In 2008, in an attempt to maneuver around firearms regulations and the ATF's rescission of his businesses' FFLs, Gilbert entered into an agreement with Defendants Raymond and Theodore Sabate, who together owned Engage Armament LLC ("Engage"), a business that customized and sold firearms. Through this agreement, Gilbert would finance the purchase of a firearm for a Range member, then Engage would use its FFL to receive the firearm from the manufacturer or dealer and to host the actual sale of the firearm on its premises. For its participation, Engage would receive a $30.00 transfer fee. Gilbert would receive the rest of the profits. Gilbert also offered a free, week-long membership to the Range to any person who purchased a firearm from Engage.

Meanwhile, also in 2008, Gilbert applied for an FFL in his own name. The ATF denied the application, finding that his businesses' GCA violations should be imputed to him and that Gilbert himself had violated the GCA by selling firearms after his businesses' FFLs had been revoked. Gossard , 206 F.Supp.3d at 1056. On June 6, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed ATF's decision. Gilbert v. Bangs , 481 Fed.Appx. 52, 55 (4th Cir. 2012).

In April 2012, Plaintiff Gossard purchased one of Gilbert's business entities, Gilbert Indoor Range, LLC ("GIR"), for one dollar. Gossard , 206 F.Supp.3d at 1056. Gossard, who had been a Range employee since 2009, also entered into a lease so that GIR could sell firearms at the Range. Two days after the Fourth Circuit affirmed ATF's denial of Gilbert's FFL application, Gossard applied for an FFL on behalf of GIR.

FFL applicants must list on their application all "responsible persons" in their business. Specifically, they must notify the ATF of "any individual possessing, directly or indirectly, the power to direct or cause the direction of the management, policies, and practices of the corporation, partnership, or association, insofar as they pertain to firearms." Gossard , 206 F.Supp.3d at 1061 (quoting FFL Application Instructions). Willful failure to list a responsible person is grounds for the application's denial. 18 U.S.C. § 923(d)(1)(D) ; 27 C.F.R. § 478.47(b)(4) (2016) ; see Mew Sporting Goods, LLC v. Johansen , 992 F.Supp.2d 665, 678 (N.D. W. Va. 2014). Gossard's FFL application did not name Gilbert as a responsible person for GIR.

Defendant Arlington was the ATF Industry Operations Investigator charged with investigating Gossard's application. On November 16, 2012, she gave what Gossard thought was verbal approval of the application. Gossard immediately alerted the Range's customers that he was now able to sell firearms. He also told Raymond about the FFL approval. Plaintiffs have not alleged that they expended any money or entered into any transactions based on Arlington's statement.

The anticipated FFL approval was not forthcoming. The same day that Arlington spoke with Gossard, Raymond contacted ATF to accuse Gossard of being a straw applicant for Gilbert and a marijuana user. Ultimately, on August 26, 2013, ATF denied Gossard's application on the grounds that he had not disclosed Gilbert as a responsible person and had engaged in unlawful drug use. Gossard , 206 F.Supp.3d at 1058. "Immediately after" Gossard received the denial, Raymond contacted Gilbert, informed him of Gossard's alleged drug use, and admitted that it was he who had spoken to ATF about Gossard's application. Am. Compl. ¶ 78, ECF No. 56–1.

306 F.Supp.3d 782

"It was at this time" that Gilbert "realized" that Raymond, Sabate, Engage, and ATF were conspiring against him. Id. ¶ 79.

Gossard appealed the denial of his FFL application. After an administrative hearing, ATF issued a Final Notice affirming its decision on January 20, 2015. On March 24, 2015, Gossard filed a petition in this Court to contest that decision. On June 30, 2016, this Court upheld the ATF's denial of the application on the basis that Gossard had willfully omitted material information from his application. Gossard , 206 F.Supp.3d at 1065. Specifically, this Court found that Gossard should have listed Gilbert as a "responsible person" for Gossard's business because "Gilbert could indirectly control the management, policies, and practices of GIR." Id. at 1063–65. This Court reached this conclusion without considering whether Gossard was a drug user or whether alleged drug use was a proper basis for the FFL's denial. On November 13, 2017, the Fourth Circuit affirmed this Court's decision. Gossard v. Fronczak , 701 Fed.Appx. 266, 266 (4th Cir. 2017).

On July 21, 2015, while Gossard's challenge was still pending before this Court, Gossard and Gilbert filed this case. The initial Complaint (the "original Complaint") listed only the United States and the Acting Director of ATF as defendants and asserted two claims: a governmental taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment and the tort claim of intentional interference with current and prospective business advantage/contract. The Takings Clause claim was later voluntarily dismissed. On January 18, 2017, Plaintiffs amended their Complaint (the "First Amended Complaint") to add Arlington, in her official and personal capacities, Engage, Raymond, Sabate, and Greg Miller as defendants.1 The First Amended Complaint also substituted ATF itself in place of its Acting Director.

The Complaint was amended yet again on May 3, 2017 (the "Second Amended Complaint") to add four additional claims: a Fifth Amendment due process violation, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (" § 1983"), and three state law tort claims: unjust enrichment, intentional misrepresentation, and constructive fraud. As relevant here, Plaintiffs allege that Arlington, Raymond, Sabate, and Miller conspired to use Raymond's false testimony to deny an FFL to Gossard so that Raymond and Engage could steal Gilbert's customer base and benefit from the lucrative business of selling firearms without competition from Gossard. Plaintiffs allege that Gossard and Gilbert both lost potential revenue because Gossard never received an FFL and therefore could not sell firearms for profit, and Gilbert was thus deprived of rent that GIR would have paid for leasing space at the Range.

DISCUSSION

The Federal Defendants seek dismissal of all counts asserted against them on the grounds that those claims are barred by sovereign immunity or are foreclosed by this Court's ruling in Gossard v. Fronczak , 206 F.Supp.3d at 1063–65. The Private Defendants seek dismissal on the grounds that (1) they are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Hyman v. Capital One Auto Fin., CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17–89
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • January 23, 2018
    ...omitted).The Court finds that further amendment would be futile. While Plaintiff may have suffered constitutional injuries due to the 306 F.Supp.3d 776repossession of her car, the Amended Complaint does not provide any basis for believing that Plaintiff faces a "real and immediate" threat o......
  • Barry Doe v. Meron, Civil Action No. PX-17-812
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • July 30, 2018
    ...definition, would fall outside the scope of his employment. Cf. Gilbert v. U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 306 F. Supp. 3d 776, 784 (D. Md. 2018) ("The fact that the employee's alleged acts were wrongful is not, alone, sufficient to show that they were conducted ou......
  • Aldabe v. Cohen
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • March 30, 2022
    ...... misguided argument here. Cf. Gilbert v. U.S. Bureau of. Alcohol, Tobacco, ms and Explosives, 306 F.Supp.3d. 776, 784 (D. Md. 2018) ......
  • Brown v. Assoc. Warden G. Cooper, Civ. No. 18-219 (DSD/BRT)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • December 11, 2018
    ...not the BOP.14 Therefore, Plaintiff cannot bring any Bivens-type claims against the Mayo Defendants. See Gilbert v. United States, 306 F. Supp. 3d 776, 788 (D. Md. 2018) ("Bivens actions . . . cannot be brought against private actors or corporations, even when they are so closely aligned wi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT