Hamilton v. Accu-Tek
| Decision Date | 22 January 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-95-0049 (JBW).,CV-95-0049 (JBW). |
| Citation | 47 F.Supp.2d 330 |
| Parties | Freddie HAMILTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ACCU-TEK, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Elisa Barnes, New York, NY, Weitz & Luxenberg, New York, NY, By Denise M. Dunleavy, Schulte Roth & Zabel, LLP, New York, NY by Mark E. Elovitz, Michael S. Feldberg, for Plaintiffs.
Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, Chicago, IL, By James P. Dorr, Anne Giddings Kimball, for Defendants Sturm, Ruger, Colt's Manufacturing, Smith & Wesson.
Winget & Spadafora, New York, NY by Mark G. Vaughn, for Defendant Ashland Shooting Supply.
Pino & Associates, White Plains, NY by Lawrence G. Keane, for Defendants Beretta USA Corp., Beretta Firearms.
Cozen & O'Connor, Atlanta, GA, by Timothy A. Bumann, for Defendants Taurus, Bryco, Jennings, American Derringer, Lorcin, Sundance and others.
Bartlett, McDonough, Bastone & Monaghan, LLP, Mineola, NY by E. Gordon Haesloop, for Defendant Ellett Bros.
Budd Larner Gross Rosenbaum Greenberg & Sade, Short Hills, NJ, by David R. Gross, James F. Fitzsimmons, for Defendants AcuSport Corp., Bangers, L.P., Brazas Sporting Arms, Inc., Chattanooga Shooting Supplies, Inc., Davidson's Supply Co., Inc., Hill Country Wholesale, Inc., Keisler Police Supply & Ammunition Co., Inc., Lipsey's Inc., Lew Horton Distributing, Inc., RSR Wholesale South, Scott Wholesale Co., Inc., SG Distributing, Inc., SOG International, Inc., and Sports South, Inc.
Renzulli, Gainey & Rutherford, New York, NY, by John F. Renzulli, Fred E Scharf, for Defendants Glock, Inc., Accutek, Thompson Center, Navegar, Intratec, Para Ordnance, Olympia.
Morgan, Melhuish, Monaghan, Arvidson, Abrutyn & Lisowski, New York, NY by Daniel T. Hughes, Erin A. O'Leary, for Defendant American Arms.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, New York, NY by Robert L. Joyce, for Defendant Sigarms, Inc.
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................. 333
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ......................... 334
A. Procedural History ................................... 334
B. Out-of-State Shootings ............................... 334
1. Christopher Malachi ............................... 334
2. David Johnstone ................................... 335
III LAW ..................................................... 335
A. Choice of Law ........................................ 335
1. New York's Choice of Law Rules .................... 335
2. Renvoi ............................................ 338
B. Transfer ............................................. 339
IV APPLICATION .............................................. 339
A. Choice of Law ......................................... 339
1. Johnstone v. Accu-tek, et al. ...................... 339
a. Significant Contacts ............................ 340
b. Interest Analysis ............................... 340
c. Effect of Parties' Stipulation .................. 343
2. Costa v. Accu-tek, et al. .......................... 345
B. Transfer .............................................. 346
1. Convenience of Parties and Witnesses ............... 346
2. Plaintiffs' Choice of Forum ........................ 346
3. Practical Considerations ........................... 347
4. Interest in Local Adjudication ..................... 347
5. Familiarity with Applicable Law .................... 347
6. Interests of Justice ............................... 348
V. CONCLUSION ............................................... 348
In this case of first impression, relatives of persons killed by handguns, and one crippled survivor, have sued many handgun manufacturers jointly. Defendants' negligent marketing practices, plaintiffs contend, have created a large pool of illegal handguns readily accessible to violent New York criminals. Two of the nine shootings at issue here took place outside the state of New York—one in Virginia and one in California—raising potential conflicts of law.
A conflict between clearly-articulated, well-established legal rules of different jurisdictions is not presented. Each of the issues posed is novel: Did the defendants owe a legal duty to reduce the risk of criminal misuse of their product by exercising reasonable care in marketing and distributing it? Is a given defendant's liability limited to those shootings which involved a handgun made or distributed by it? May defendants be held collectively liable for the harm resulting from all of the shootings on the theory that their contribution to an underground market in fungible illegal handguns was the proximate cause of plaintiffs' injuries? If defendants are collectively liable, shall their liability be calculated based on each defendant's share of the relevant market? Given the novelty of plaintiffs' claims, the laws of New York, Virginia, and California are virtually certain to conflict.
Substantial weight must be accorded the location of the tort under New York's choice of law rules and each state's fundamental interest in the physical safety of citizens and travelers within its geographical boundaries. Application of Virginia and California law to the Virginia and California shootings is mandated.
Transfer of these two cases to the states where the shootings occurred is desirable. The applicable state law is highly unsettled. Interpreting it will require a subtle appreciation of state tort law developments and nuances unique to Virginia and California. This task is best carried out by district courts sitting in those states. In addition, local juries are probably the best arbiters of the unreasonableness of the risk posed by acts with local consequences. The interests of justice will best be served by transfer of Costa v. Accu-tek et al. and Johnstone v. Accu-tek et al. to Virginia and California respectively.
Katina Johnstone was one of two plaintiffs who initiated this suit in January 1995. In April 1996, her suit was consolidated with a number of other similar ones, including one filed by Veronica Costa. The complex and novel issues presented have necessitated development of a detailed and lengthy factual record. Defendants' earlier motions for summary judgment on plaintiffs' negligence claims were denied with leave to renew, on the ground that discovery was not yet complete and the issues not fully briefed. See Hamilton v. Accu-tek, 935 F.Supp. 1307, 1315, 1330 (E.D.N.Y.1996).
With discovery nearing completion, defendants again moved for summary judgement in November 1998, on the ground that no cause of action existed. Oral argument was heard on December 17, 1998. The motion was denied. See Order dated December 18, 1998.
A series of motions to dismiss based upon lack of personal jurisdiction were denied, relying on the theory explicated in In re DES Cases, 789 F.Supp. 552 (E.D.N.Y.1992). See Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 32 F.Supp.2d 47 (E.D.N.Y.1998) ().
Having determined that Virginia law applied to the claims arising out of the Virginia shooting of Ms. Costa's son, and in serious doubt about the applicability of New York law to Ms. Johnstone's California-based claims, the court severed Costa v. Accu-tek et al. and Johnstone v. Accu-tek et al. from the cases set for immediate trial. See Order dated December 22, 1998. Decision on the issue of transfer was reserved pending final resolution of the choice of law issue. See Order dated December 29, 1998.
Christopher Malachi was shot and killed in Portsmouth, Virginia on April 19, 1994. He was twenty-three years old. Malachi was a New York domiciliary planning to return to New York to live. See Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 13 F.Supp.2d 366 (E.D.N.Y. 1998). At the time of his murder, he had resided in Virginia as both college student and house painter for four years.
The Portsmouth police questioned a number of witnesses with possible connections to the gun used in the Malachi shooting, but the gun itself was never recovered. Expended bullets and casings were collected from the crime scene and were analyzed by the Virginia Department of General Services Division of Forensic Science.
David Johnstone was a New York resident and domiciliary. He was shot while visiting San Francisco on July 29, 1992, and died one month later in New York. The shooter, a 16-year old resident of California, ultimately pled guilty to murder. The San Francisco Police Department recovered the gun used to shoot Mr. Johnstone, a Smith & Wesson .38 caliber revolver. It had been registered in California in 1988 and had been stolen from the Marin County home of its lawful owner two weeks before the shooting.
A choice of law question is presented when a dispute implicates the interests of two or more states and application of each state's law would be consistent with the Full Faith and Credit and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution. See Cooney v. Osgood Machinery, 81 N.Y.2d 66, 70-71, 612 N.E.2d 277, 279, 595 N.Y.S.2d 919, 921 (1993); Diehl v. Ogorewac, 836 F.Supp. 88, 91 (E.D.N.Y.1993). These modest constitutional requirements are met if each state whose law is sought to be applied has "significant contacts or significant aggregation of contacts creating state interests, such that choice of its law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302, 313, 101 S.Ct. 633, 66 L.Ed.2d 521 (1981). See also Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 818-23, 105 S.Ct. 2965, 86 L.Ed.2d 628 (1985).
Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), requires a federal court sitting in diversity to apply the choice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gould Electronics Inc. v. U.S.
...domiciliary law as the loss allocating law. See Comer v. Titan Tool Inc., 875 F.Supp. 255, 259 (S.D.N.Y. 1995); Hamilton v. Accu-Tek , 47 F.Supp.2d 330, 337 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). In Comer, the Court explained: When the law in conflict is loss allocating, the law of the state where at least one o......
-
Falise v. American Tobacco Co.
...each state's law would be consistent with the Full Faith and Credit and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution." Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 47 F.Supp.2d 330, 335 (E.D.N.Y.1999). A federal court faced with a choice-of-law question will apply the choice-of-law rules of the forum state; in this ca......
-
Snider v. Sterling Airways, Inc.
...ultimate question of which state has the greater interest in having its law applied to the litigation at hand." Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 47 F. Supp. 2d 330, 337 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). "If conflicting conduct-regulating laws are at issue, the law of the jurisdiction where the tort 'occurred' will gen......
-
Wultz v. Bank of China Ltd.
...44. Curley, 153 F.3d at 12 (citing Brink's Ltd. v. South African Airways, 93 F.3d 1022, 1031 (2d Cir.1996)). 45. Hamilton v. Accu–Tek, 47 F.Supp.2d 330, 337 (E.D.N.Y.1999). 46. Kirschenbaum v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 572 F.Supp.2d 200, 210 (D.D.C.2008). 47. Strauss v. Credit Lyonnais, S.A......
-
How To Get Out Of Dodge: Winning Patent Venue Transfer Strategies And The Federal Circuit
...of Tex. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142915, at * 20 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 17, 2013). xxi See Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 47 F. Supp. 2d 330, 348 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (transferring cases due to complex conflicts of law issues applicable to tort xxii In re Wyeth & Wyeth Pharms., In......
-
Beware of plaintiffs' new uses of old tort theories to avoid product identification.
...No. 98-18578, Civ. Dist. Ct., Parish of Orleans, Louisiana). (21.) See 935 F.Supp. 1307 (1996); 13 F.Supp.2d 366 (1998); 1998 WL 903473; 47 F.Supp.2d 330 (1999); 62 F.Supp.2d 802, 821-22 (22.) 222 F.3d 36 (2000). See also 225 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2000) (denying Colt's, which was one of 25 defe......