Supreme court allows Remington to be sued by Sandy Hook victims

This is all about a highly technical point of civil procedure (which is one reason the press will get it wrong). This is still in a very preliminary stage, and the plaintiffs haven't won yet. (This lawsuit was previously discussed at length in this thread. I outline very basic civil litigation procedure in this post.)

1. The plaintiffs appealed the trial courts dismissal of their case on the defendant's motion to strike (the Connecticut name for what is elsewhere called a motion to dismiss or a demurrer).
   
   
2. Making such a motion is one of the very first thing a defendant does when sued. Essentially nothing else has gone on yet.
   
   • The plaintiff filed the complaint -- the document that say you [the defendant] owe me money and these are the facts that support my claim.
     
     
   • The defendant files his motion to strike/motion to dismiss/demurrer which basically says that even if every fact you allege is true as a matter of law you have no valid claim against me.
   
   
3. So the plaintiffs filed the suit alleging various facts. At this stage those facts are assumed to be true. The defendants filed a motion saying the even if those facts are true, the plaintiffs have no valid claim. The trial court agreed and dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit. The plaintiffs appealed.
   
   
4. On appeal the Connecticut Supreme Court (CSC) mostly agreed with the trial court. The CSC wrote in the opinion:
   

   ....For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we agree with the defendants that most of the plaintiffs’ claims and legal theories are precluded by established Connecticut law and/or PLCAA. For example, we expressly reject the plaintiffs’ theory that, merely by selling semiautomatic rifles—which were legal at the time—to the civilian population, the defendants became responsible for any crimes committed with those weapons....

   Click to expand...

   
   
5. However, the CSC disagreed with the trial court on one point. The CSC writes:
   

   ....The plaintiffs have offered one narrow legal theory, however, that is recognized under established Connecticut law. Specifically, they allege that the defendants knowingly marketed, advertised, and promoted the XM15-E2S for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies. Such use of the XM15-E2S, or any weapon for that matter, would be illegal, and Connecticut law does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior. Following a scrupulous review of the text and legislative history of PLCAA, we also conclude that Congress has not clearly manifested an intent to extinguish the traditional authority of our legislature and our courts to protect the people of Connecticut from the pernicious practices alleged in the present case. The regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states’ police powers. Accordingly, on the basis of that limited theory, we conclude that the plaintiffs have pleaded allegations sufficient to survive a motion to strike and are entitled to have the opportunity to prove their wrongful marketing allegations. We affirm the trial court’s judgment insofar as that court struck the plaintiffs’ claims predicated on all other legal theories.....

   Click to expand...

   
   
6. So --
   
   • The CSC did not find that anything the plaintiffs claimed was true. The CSC merely, as required, assumed those facts were true in order to then decide the open questions of law.
     
     
   • The CSC determined that most of the plaintiffs claims were not valid, legal claims; and those claims have been decided in favor of the defendants.
     
     
   • The CSC is allowing the lawsuit to go forward on the one legal theory of liability remaining. That legal theory is based on claimed liability under a Connecticut consumer protection law. In doing so the CSC also decides that the claim under the particular state law was not precluded by the PLCAA.
   
   
7. The plaintiffs will still need to prove that the facts alleged to support their last viable theory of liability are true.
   
   
8. Also, the defendants can appeal to the federal courts of whether, as found by the CSC, a suit based on the particular state law is not precluded by the PLCAA.

There's still a lot of waiting and seeing to be done as the lawsuit grind through the process.

Click to expand...