Johnson v. Bryco Arms
| Decision Date | 03 February 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 03 CV 2582(JBW).,03 CV 2582(JBW). |
| Parties | Jaquione JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. BRYCO ARMS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Taub and Marder, New York, NY, by Kenneth Marder, Alison A. Gormley, for Plaintiff.
Lester, Schwab, Katz & Dwyer, LLP, New York, NY, by John Sandercock, for Defendant Acusport, Corp. Renzulli, Pisciotti & Renzulli, LLP, New York, NY, by Leonard S. Rosenbaum, for Defendant Atlantic Gun & Tackle, Inc.
I. Introduction ........................................................ 388
II. Factual Allegations ................................................. 389
III. Law ................................................................. 390
A. Motion to Dismiss ................................................ 390
1. Statement of a Claim .......................................... 390
a. Standard and Scope of Review ............................... 390
b. Claims ..................................................... 390
1. Public Nuisance ......................................... 390
A. Causation ............................................ 391
B. Special Harm ......................................... 392
i. Physical and Emotional Injury .................... 392
ii. Pecuniary Injury ................................. 393
2. Negligence .............................................. 394
A. Duty ................................................. 394
B. Causation ............................................ 395
3. Products Liability ...................................... 396
2. Personal Jurisdiction ......................................... 396
a. Standard of Review ......................................... 396
b. New York Long Arm Statute .................................. 397
c. Criteria for Claims Involving Firearms Sales ............... 397
B. Amending the Complaint ........................................... 398
IV. Application of Law to Facts ......................................... 398
A. Motion to Dismiss ................................................ 398
1. Statement of a Claim .......................................... 398
a. Public Nuisance ............................................ 398
b. Negligence ................................................. 399
c. Products Liability ......................................... 400
2. Personal Jurisdiction ......................................... 400
B. Amending the Complaint ........................................... 401
V. Conclusion .......................................................... 401
While working at a Wendy's restaurant in Flushing, New York in May 2001, eighteen-year-old Jaquione Johnson was shot in the head in the course of an attempted robbery. The weapon used was an illegally acquired semi-automatic pistol.
The two perpetrators ordered Wendy's employees to go down to the basement. There they were lined up, their heads covered with plastic bags, and, one by one, they were shot in the head. Five were killed. Johnson and one other were severely injured. The incident acquired the appellation "The Wendy's Massacre."
Johnson sues the gun's manufacturer (Bryco Arms), the wholesaler (B.L.Jennings), the distributor (Acusport Corp.), and the retailer (Atlantic Gun & Tackle, Inc.). Causes of action for public nuisance, negligence, design defect, breach of warranty, and strict liability are claimed.
Atlantic Gun & Tackle moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for lack of personal jurisdiction. Acusport moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Bryco Arms and B.L. Jennings have filed a suggestion of bankruptcy automatically staying these proceedings as to them. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).
For the reasons set out below the motion to dismiss the products liability claims is granted. Discovery will proceed on the public nuisance and negligence claims and on the issue of personal jurisdiction.
Normally an examination of evidence is not useful in deciding a motion to dismiss. Courts limit themselves to considering the legal bases for the causes of action alleged and assume the plaintiff's version of facts to be true. In evaluating the legal sufficiency of this plaintiff's claims, however, it is desirable to briefly review Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF") crime-gun trace data and the marketing practices of the gun industry. Preliminary examination of this material is prudent in light of recent cases interpreting New York law as requiring specific factual backgrounds in order to state a cause of action for public nuisance and negligence against the firearms industry. See Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 96 N.Y.2d 222, 233-39, 727 N.Y.S.2d 7, 750 N.E.2d 1055 (2001) (); People v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Index No. 402586/00, at 26-27 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Aug. 10, 2001) (), aff'd, 309 A.D.2d 91, 761 N.Y.S.2d 192 (N.Y.App.Div.2003), leave to appeal denied, 100 N.Y.2d 514, 769 N.Y.S.2d 200, 801 N.E.2d 421 (2003).
Plaintiff was shot with a .380 caliber semiautomatic pistol by one of the robbers, John Taylor or Craig Godineaux. The gun allegedly was acquired by Taylor or Godineaux following a trail of possession during which the weapon repeatedly changed hands, both legally and illegally. It is contended that the firearm was (1) manufactured by Bryco Arms in California; (2) sold to B.L. Jennings in Nevada; (3) sold to Acusport in Ohio; (4) sold to Atlantic Gun & Tackle in Ohio; (5) sold to Angela Freeman, a resident of Ohio, with the retailer's knowledge that she was purchasing it on behalf of Bernard Gardier because he could not legally purchase it himself; (6) illegally transported by Gardier and one Jamal Gales to New York City, and there illegally sold by them to an unknown individual; and (7) sold twice more before coming into the possession of Taylor or Godineaux.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants' sales and distribution practices created, contributed to and maintained the illegal secondary gun market through which this handgun moved until it did its deadly work. This underground market, it is contended, depended upon defendants' irresponsible business practices, such as multiple firearms sales and straw purchases. It is argued that defendants knew or should have known that their guns were being sold on the underground market and repeatedly used in the commission of crimes, but, because they gained significant revenue from illegal firearms sales, they failed to adopt basic policies and practices that would greatly decrease the number of guns reaching criminals; and that the defendants created and contributed to this illegal secondary market despite the knowledge that it was reasonably foreseeable that individuals like the plaintiff and the public at large would be harmed. Plaintiff's conclusions rest, in part, upon ATF data indicating that a high proportion of guns distributed by Acusport and subsequently sold by Atlantic Gun & Tackle have been traced to crimes. The gun in question, it is alleged, was sold by Acusport to Atlantic Gun & Tackle, which in turn sold it to a straw purchaser, and was ultimately used to severely injure the plaintiff. Defendants' conduct, the plaintiff concludes, caused his injuries — the kind of harm reasonably foreseeable from these gun companies' delicts.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." Defendant has the burden of proving "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim [that] would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). "The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974).
In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the task of the court "is merely to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint, not to assay the weight of the evidence which might be offered in support thereof." Geisler v. Petrocelli, 616 F.2d 636, 639 (2d Cir.1980). A court must accept the plaintiff's factual allegations as true, drawing all reasonable inference in plaintiff's favor. Bernheim v. Litt, 79 F.3d 318, 321 (2d Cir.1996). Materials outside the complaint are generally not considered on a motion to dismiss unless the court treats it as one for summary judgment, giving all the parties a reasonable opportunity to present relevant evidence under Rule 56. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 48 (2d Cir.1991) (); see also ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Handy
...Sport Shop, Inc., No. 06-CV-6504, 2008 WL 427964, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11699 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 15.2008) (same); Johnson v. Bryco Arms, 304 F.Supp.2d 383 (E.D.N.Y.2004) (discussing claims by victim of gun violence against gun manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, and retailer); NAACP v. A.A. ......
-
Fagan v. Amerisourcebergen Corp.
...breached that duty; and (3) that the defendant's breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. See, Johnson v. Bryco Arms, 304 F.Supp.2d 383, 394 (E.D.N.Y.2004)(citing Akins v. Glens Falls City Sch. Dist., 53 N.Y.2d 325, 333, 441 N.Y.S.2d 644, 424 N.E.2d 531 [1981]). In New Yo......
-
In re Juul Labs, Inc., Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig.
...disguised product liability claims. The allegations in that case also differ from the ones here. See Johnson v. Bryco Arms , 304 F. Supp. 2d 383, 389–91 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (allowing public nuisance claim against gun industry whose marketing and sales led to illegal secondary gun market; analog......
-
Covey v. Simonton
...(quoting Solomon v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027, 489 N.E.2d 1294, 499 N.Y.S.2d 392 (1985)); see also Johnson v. Bryco Arms, 304 F.Supp.2d 383, 394 (E.D.N.Y.2004). Under New York law, a prima facie case of negligence on the of the driver of the moving vehicle is established when t......