Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

September 21, 2007, Argued; April 30, 2008, Decided

Docket No. 05-6942-cv(LEAD), 05-6964-cv (XAP), 06-3692-cv (CON), 06-3695-cv (XAP)

Opinion

 [*388]  MINER, Circuit Judge:

Defendants-appellants-cross-appellees, manufacturers and wholesale sellers of firearms ("Firearms Suppliers"), appeal from so much of an order entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Weinstein, J.) as denies their motion, grounded on the claim restriction provisions of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, for dismissal of the complaint. In the complaint, plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, the City  [*389]  of New York (the "City"), seeks injunctive relief to inhibit the diversion of firearms into illegal markets. The District Court determined that the Act did not violate the United States Constitution, and that the Act's statutory exception for claims based on  [**7] the violation of a state statute applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms is met by New York's criminal nuisance statute. The City cross appeals from so much of the above-described order as rejects, in accordance with the position taken by intervenor United States of America, various constitutional challenges to the Act raised by the City. Because we conclude that the PLCAA (1) bars the instant action and (2) represents a permissible exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, we affirm the order of the District Court in part and reverse in part.

BACKGROUND

I. Introduction

The action giving rise to this appeal was commenced on June 20, 2000, when the City filed a complaint against the Firearms Suppliers seeking injunctive relief and abatement of the alleged public nuisance caused by the Firearms Suppliers' distribution practices. The City claimed that the Firearms Suppliers market guns to legitimate buyers with the knowledge that those guns will be diverted through various mechanisms into illegal markets. The City also claimed that the Firearms Suppliers fail to take reasonable steps to inhibit the flow of firearms into illegal markets. On October 2, 2001, the action  [**8] was stayed due to issues arising from the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. The initial stay of sixty days was continued pending the outcome of an appeal proceeding in state court involving the same claims for relief sought by the State of New York against most of the defendants in this action. See People v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 309 A.D.2d 91, 761 N.Y.S.2d 192, 194--95 (N.Y. App. Div.), leave to appeal denied, 100 N.Y.2d 514, 801 N.E.2d 421, 769 N.Y.S.2d 200 (2003) (affirming dismissal of the state's common law public nuisance claim). After the stay was lifted, the City filed a Second Amended Complaint ("Amended Complaint") on January 27, 2004.

On October 26, 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Pub. L. No. 109-92, 119 Stat. 2095 (codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901--03) (the "PLCAA" or the "Act") became federal law. The PLCAA provides that any "qualified civil liability action that is pending on October 26, 2005, shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending." 15 U.S.C. § 7902(b). A "qualified civil liability action" is

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

524 F.3d 384 *; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 9309 **

CITY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG, 1 Mayor of the City of New York, CHRISTINE C. QUINN, 2 Speaker of the New York City Council, NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellees, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor, v. BERETTA U.S.A. CORP., BROWNING ARMS CO., COLT'S MFG. CO., INC., FORJAS TAURUS, S.A., GLOCK INC., PHOENIX ARMS, SIGARMS, INC., SMITH & WESSON CORP., STURM, RUGER AND CO., INC., TAURUS INTERNATIONAL MANUFACTURING, INC., SIGARMS SAUER GMBH, f/k/a J.P. Sauer & Sohn Inc., TANFOGLIO FRATELLI S.R.L., WILLIAMS SHOOTERS SUPPLY, WALTER CRAIG, INC., VALOR CORP., SPORTS SOUTH, INC., SOUTHERN OHIO GUN, INC., RSR GROUP, INC., RON SHIRK'S SHOOTERS' SUPPLIES, INC., RILEY'S INC., MKS SUPPLY, INC., LIPSEY'S, INC., LEW HORTON DISTRIBUTION CO., KIESLER POLICE SUPPLY INC., HICKS, INC., GLEN ZANDERS FUR AND SPORTING GOODS, CO., FABER BROTHERS, INC., EUCLID AVENUE SALES, ELLETT BROTHERS, INC., DIXIE SHOOTERS SUPPLY, INC., DAVIDSON'S SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., CHATTANOOGA SHOOTING SUPPLIES, INC., CAMFOUR, INC., BRAZAS SPORTING ARMS, INC., BILL HICKS & COMPANY, BANGERS, L.P., ALAMO LEATHER GOODS, INC., ACUSPORT CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, B.L. JENNINGS, INC., BRYCO ARMS, INC., CARL WALTHER GMBH, FMJ, a/k/a Full Metal Jacket, GLOCK GMBH, H&R 1871, INC., HI-POINT FIREARMS, NAVEGAR INC., d/b/a Intratec USA, Inc., O.F. MOSSBERG AND SONS, INC., PIETRO BERETTA SP.A, ROSSI, S.A., JOHN DOE MANUFACTURERS 1-100, CHINA NORTH INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, a/k/a Norinco, REMINGTON ARMS CO. INC., CHARCO 2000, INC., LLAMA GABILONDO Y CIA, MARLIN FIREARMS CO., SAVAGE ARMS, INC., U.S. REPEATING ARMS CO., INC., SCOTT WHOLESALE CO., INC., Manufacturer Defendants, Distributor Defendants, Manufacturer and Distributor Defendants, Defendants, Joan Truman Smith, Interested-Party, John F. Curran, Interested Party.

Subsequent History: As Amended, May 30, 2008.

US Supreme Court certiorari denied by New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 2009 U.S. LEXIS 1833 (U.S., Mar. 9, 2009)

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from so much of an order entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Weinstein, J.) as denies the motion by defendant firearms suppliers, grounded on the claim restriction provisions of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff City of New York seeking injunctive relief to inhibit the diversion of firearms into illegal markets, the District Court having determined that the Act's statutory exception allowing claims for violation of a state statute is met by the New York criminal nuisance statute; cross appeal from so much of the same order as rejects, in accordance with the position taken by intervenor United States of America, various constitutional challenges to the Act.

City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 401 F. Supp. 2d 244, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30363 (2005)

Disposition: The judgment of the District Court with respect to the constitutionality of the PLCAA is AFFIRMED. The case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to enter judgment dismissing the case as barred by the PLCAA.

CORE TERMS

firearms, predicate, marketing, Suppliers, district court, interstate commerce, guns, manufacturer, courts, state court, interstate, cases, civil liability, seller, state law, ambiguity, legislative history, regulating, Appeals, motion to dismiss, foreign commerce, federal court, plain meaning, ammunition, terms, words, generally applicable, separation of powers, state statute, nuisance

Criminal Law & Procedure, Miscellaneous Offenses, Nuisances, General Overview, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Appellate Jurisdiction, Interlocutory Orders, Certified Questions, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Judgments, Pretrial Judgments, Judgment on Pleadings, Constitutional Law, Case or Controversy, Constitutional Questions, Congressional Duties & Powers, Commerce Clause, Interstate Commerce, The Judiciary, Governments, Courts, Authority to Adjudicate, Separation of Powers, Reserved Powers, Bill of Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Freedom to Petition, Torts, Products Liability, Procedural Matters, Commencement & Prosecution, Legislation, Interpretation