Travieso v. Glock Inc.

• Citation: 526 F.Supp.3d 533
• Decision Date: 10 March 2021
• Docket Number: No. CV-20-00523-PHX-SMB,CV-20-00523-PHX-SMB
• Parties: Carlos Daniel TRAVIESO, Plaintiff, v. GLOCK INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Arizona

526 F.Supp.3d 533

Carlos Daniel TRAVIESO, Plaintiff,

v.GLOCK INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants.

No. CV-20-00523-PHX-SMB

United States District Court, D. Arizona.

Signed March 10, 2021

John Patrick Torgenson, Jon T. Drago, Torgenson Law PLC, Phoenix, AZ, Jonathan Lowy, Pro Hac Vice, Brady United, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Christopher Renzulli, Pro Hac Vice, John F. Renzulli, Pro Hac Vice, Peter V. Malfa, Pro Hac Vice, Renzulli Law Firm LLP, White Plains, NY, for Defendant Glock GesmbH.

ORDER

Susan M. Brnovich, United States District Judge Pending before the Court is Defendant, Glock Incorporated's, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and pursuant to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ("PLCAA"). (Doc. 19.) Plaintiff filed a response, (Doc. 21), and Defendant has filed a reply. (Doc. 25.) Part of Plaintiff's response challenged the constitutionality of the PLCAA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901 - 7903. (Doc. 21 at 13-17.) As such, the United States has intervened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(c) and 24(a)(1) to defend the constitutionality of the statute. (Doc. 30.) Oral argument on the matter was held on February 12, 2021, and after hearing from all parties, the Court took the matter under advisement. (Doc. 37.) The Court now issues the following decision.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On March 17, 2018, Plaintiff, Carlos Daniel Travieso, was shot in the back with a Glock 19 nine-millimeter handgun ("the handgun"). The shooting occurred while Plaintiff was travelling home from a youth camping trip in a church leader's vehicle. (Doc. 1 at 8.) The handgun was also in the vehicle. (Id. at 7.) By way of facts not clear in Plaintiff's Complaint, a fourteen-year-old girl ("the Shooter") who was in the vehicle came into possession of the handgun. (Id. ) While the Shooter possessed the handgun, it discharged, firing the live round in its chamber. (Id. ) Plaintiff was hit by the round in his back and suffered numerous severe spinal injuries and injuries to his organs, including injuries that rendered him a paraplegic. (Id. at 8-9.)

No criminal charges were filed against any party connected to the shooting. (Id. ) Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that the handgun's magazine had been removed. (Doc. 1 at 8.) The Complaint further contends that, due to the absence of a magazine, the Shooter was deceived into believing the magazine was empty, even though a live round remained in the chamber. (Id. ) Plaintiff alleges that at the time of the shooting, the gun had not been modified in any significant way and retained the same features and "lack of safety features and warnings" as it did when manufactured and sold. (Id. at 7-8.)

This alleged lack of safety features is the center of Plaintiff's suit. Plaintiff asserts his shooting "resulted from the negligent, reckless, unnecessary, and unreasonably dangerous actions of Defendants, including their design, manufacturing, marketing, distribution, and sale of a handgun without a magazine disconnect safety, effective loading chamber indicator, internal lock, or other safety features that would have prevented it from being fired by a child or any other person who did not have proper authority or maturity to use it, or effective warnings." (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff brings four claims against the Defendants. His first claim alleges that Defendants are liable to him under a theory of strict products liability based on the defective design of their product. (Id. at 17-20.) Second, he alleges that Defendants are liable to him under a theory of strict products liability for an "information defect" and the failure to place adequate warnings on their product. (Id. at 21-24.) Plaintiff's third and fourth claims are for negligence rather than for strict products liability. (Id. at 24-25.) His third claim alleges Defendants had a duty not to expose others to unreasonable risks of injury and breached that duty by the negligent design of the handgun. (Id. at 24.) His fourth claim also alleges Defendants had a general duty not to expose others to reasonably foreseeable risks of injury, and that Defendants breached that duty by "by negligently marketing guns," and providing inadequate warnings on the firearms themselves. (Id. at 25-26.) Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages against the Defendants for alleged willful and wanton disregard for others. (Doc. 27-28.)

Defendant Glock Incorporated has responded to the Complaint with a Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 19), arguing Plaintiff's claims against it are barred by the PLCAA because the Plaintiff's shooting was caused by the criminal act of a third party. (Id. at 6) Defendant alleges the shooter's criminal acts include possession of a handgun by a juvenile in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(x)(2)(A), possession of a handgun by an unemancipated minor in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3111(A), endangerment in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1201(A), as well as assault and aggravated assault in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-1204(A)(1) & (2). (Doc. 19 at 6.)

Plaintiff filed a Response, (Doc. 21), arguing the correct statutory construction of the PLCAA shows the statute is inapplicable to the present case. Plaintiff also argues that even if the general statute did apply, his claims are allowed under the PLCAA's "product defect exception." (Id. at 5-8); 15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A)(v). Finally, Plaintiff argues that if the PLCAA does bar its action, then the statute itself is unconstitutional under the Fifth and Tenth amendments to the United States Constitution. (Doc. 21 at 11-17.)

Defendant in turn filed a Reply, (Doc. 25), arguing that the PLCAA's immunity clearly applies, and further arguing that the "product defect" exception does not apply because the shooting of Plaintiff "was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense[.]" (Id. at 2-3. (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A)(v) )).

Because Plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the PLCAA, the United States also intervened to defend the PLCAA's constitutionality. (Doc. 30.) The Government argues the PLCAA is a constitutional application of Congress's enumerated powers under the Commerce clause. (Id. at 8.) Further, the Government contends this Court's resolution of the constitutionality of the PLCAA is bound by the decision of the Ninth Circuit in Ileto v. Glock , which directly rejected Plaintiff's arguments. 565 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. denied , 560 U.S. 924, 130 S.Ct. 3320, 176 L.Ed.2d 1219 (2010).

II. Legal Background

A. The PLCAA

On October 26, 2005, Congress enacted the PLCAA into law. 109 P.L. 92, 119 Stat. 2095. The PLCAA prohibits "the institution of a ‘qualified civil liability action’ in any state or federal court." 15 U.S.C. § 7902(a). The act defines a "qualified civil liability action" as

A civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of [a firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce] ... for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party ... [.]

15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A) ; see also 15 U.S.C. § 7903(4). While the PLCAA creates an immunity from "qualified civil liability actions," this immunity is subject to several exceptions. 15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A)(i)-(vi). For example, the statute does not protect a seller who knowingly transfers a firearm that will be used in a crime of violence, nor a seller being sued for negligent entrustment or negligence per se. Nor does the PLCAA protect a manufacturer or seller who knowingly violates "a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing" of a firearm. Most applicable to this action, the PLCAA does not give immunity from:

an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense , then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage ... [.]

15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A)(v) (emphasis added).

B. The Second Amendment

The PLCAA was partly passed to safeguard the Second Amendment from efforts to indirectly assault the right to bear arms. see 15. U.S.C. §§ 7901(a)(1)-(3), (b)(2). The Second Amendment defends an individual's right to "keep and bear arms lawful purposes," which the Supreme Court has called "fundamental[ly] ... necessary to our system of ordered liberty." McDonald v. City of Chicago , 561 U.S. 742, 778, 781, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010). The Second Amendment also protects "ancillary rights" necessary to realize the core right to possess a firearm. Teixeira v. Cty. of Alameda , 873 F.3d 670, 677 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco , 746 F.3d 953, 968 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied , 576 U.S. 1013, 135 S. Ct. 2799, 192 L.Ed.2d 865 (2015) ). After all, the fundamental right to bear arms " ‘wouldn't mean much’ without the ability to acquire arms." Id. (quoting Ezell v. City of Chicago , 651 F.3d 684, 704 (7th Cir. 2011) ).

The PLCAA guards against infringement of Second Amendment rights by ensuring a citizen's continued ability to "acquire arms." Teixeira, 873 F.3d at 677 ; 15 U.S.C. § 7901(b)(2). The Act operates by preventing efforts to achieve regulation by litigation, in which groups seek to gain by judicial decree policy goals which, from constitutional defect or lack of political power, are unattainable through the legislative process. 15. U.S.C. §§ 7901(a)(8). Such efforts are especially suspect where they implicate the Court's duty to defend rights protected by the Constitution from attack. THE FEDERALIST No. 78 (Alexander Hamilton) (Giving to the...