quote:

Originally posted by DMF:
The article claims the judge, "did not offer an explanation of her decision to block the gun retailer's request to throw out the lawsuit." I find that odd. While I spend my time in fed court,and on criminal cases, I've yet to see a judge rule on a motion with absolutely no explanation of the ruling.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
This judge needs to belly up to the bar

quote:

Originally posted by roarindan:
Dunna the govt. pass a law that people can't sue gun makers over a crime?

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
I think that expecting her to toss this suit at such an early stage is unrealistic, even if it's the proper result.

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:
That article doesn't say anything about the procedural posture of the case and the actual motion brought. There are at least two motions (and maybe more I'm not a Texas attorney) that could be brought, a Civil Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim that relief can be granted for and a summary judgment motion. The article doesn't say which, if either, type of motion what brought. A 12(b)(6) motion would be my guess, and if it is that I can see where a judge would deny it without explaining why since its a very early procedural type of motion that can ultimately be re-raised at a later date if necessary. For a summary judgment, I'd expect a lot more of a ruling other than "denied" but that sometimes does occur too.

But really, the article doesn't tell any lawyer what we need to know to determine if the ruling was "bullshit". I suspect that there will be a lot of other motions brought forward in this case and this isn't the last word.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
Most likely, the judge is something of a coward and didn't want to make the call on an issue like this, which is why there is no opinion, just a denial.

Be careful, as you don't know Texas practice. Texas district court judges almost never issue written explanations of their rulings. As in practically never ever. You can't read anything into that.

My guess; the judge is hoping for one of two things; First, that this denial won't be immediately appealed (I think it will be) and second, that if it goes to trial, Academy might win, and then there will be nothing to appeal because the party adverse to the denial won anyway.

Again, you don't understand Texas civil procedure. This ruling cannot be appealed at this stage because the matter is still ongoing. Such an appeal would be interlocutory (before the final judgment) and there are only a few times interlocutory appeal is allowed. Denying summary judgment isn't one of them.

Here are the better questions:

First, is there a private right of action under the CFR requiring knowledge of the laws of the purchaser's state? I imagine that there is not. Doing so may be evidence of negligence, but that's not guaranteed, its something that must be argued.

Second, the regulation speaks to Rifle and Shotgun. These are defined terms in the regulation, and the defined terms do not mention the magazine.

Third, If there was negligence, was that negligence the proximate cause of the harm? Typically a criminal act supersedes negligence, because a criminal act is not foreseeable.

Fourth, did Academy owe any duty to the plaintiffs in this case?

These are the more interesting questions, indeed.

There's too much we don't know about the positioning of this case to infer much from this denial, and early stage denials are pretty common as judges usually want to actually give plaintiffs their chance to make their full argument in court and not be tossed out on preliminary hearings. Rest assured, Academy's lawyers will either appeal this denial, or they will save this for grounds for later appeal if the case goes against them.

Finally, judges are, regrettably human. They don't like denying emotionally charged, and deeply hurt people their shot at a trial based on something like this, particularly when the defendant is a big corporation. It isn't fair, but it certainly seems to be true.

Finally, this is an elected state, not federal, judge in the county where the shooting happened. No way in hell she was going to not let this case get further down the road. I don't know if she is a liberal or a conservative as judges elections are non-partisan. San Antonio is ranked as a slightly left of center city, and the judge was in civil litigation and representation of the poor. In fact, she set up a Community Justice Foundation for represent the poor and indigent. I suspect that she leans a bit liberal.

I think that expecting her to toss this suit at such an early stage is unrealistic, even if it's the proper result.

Texas law is somewhat reluctant to grant summary dismissals, and leans to giving litigants the chance to fully prepare and present their cases. Even though some changes have been put in place to lessen that preference, it still exists in Texas courts, and even is the policy of the state to some degree. She may be a lefty, but that may not explain this ruling in light of the way Texas courts act.

Another interesting procedural fact is that in Bexar County, they have what they call a central docketing system. What this means is that while one court is the "home" court of a case, preliminary motions are assigned to a judge on a space available basis. The judge hearing a motion like this may not be (probably isn't) the judge assigned to the case. This has advantages in avoiding backlogs if any given court is exceptionally busy at any given moment (and that is a busy courthouse), but has obvious disadvantages. Mostly, you could get a judge not familiar with a case. For some motions, familiarity isn't all that important, but sometimes it might be. So, making guesses about what a ruling like this "means" is even more fraught with uncertainty than in other counties. I don't know that this judge was a random assignment to this case for this ruling, but I don't know it wasn't.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:

I don't want to be unfair to this judge, but it seems to me the decisions like this are one of the reasons that the courts are almost hopelessly jammed, and why litigation is so expensive and time consuming. Judges in particular are always complaining and lobbying legislatures for more judges, more court rooms, and more resources to deal with the backlog, and then, when an opportunity arises to either toss a case, or narrow the scope of the case through motion practice, no opinion is rendered, and both plaintiff and defendant must proceed forward with their entire cases, even if at the end of the process the judge (or worse, the appellate courts) decide "Nope, the company is protected by federally granted immunity. Thanks for playing everyone. Sorry it cost millions and took three years, but that's the way the ball bounces."

It's an appalling waste of resources to not decide threshold matters as early in the process as possible.