Judge Rejects Gunmaker's Attempt To Get Highland Park Shooting Lawsuit Into Federal Court

CHICAGO — Survivors of the Highland Park mass shooting moved a step closer to holding the manufacturer of the rifle used in the massacre legally responsible for enabling the gunman.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Steven Seeger rejected an attempt by Smith & Wesson — and a pair of firearm dealers who sold the alleged murder weapon — to move lawsuits filed on behalf of victims and survivors to federal court.

Seeger ordered the case remanded back to the Lake County circuit courts after finding that the case did not turn on a question of federal law.

Attorneys for the Springfield, Massachusetts-based company hoped to contest the case in federal courts, where Congress has granted gunmakers broad immunity from civil liability.

According to the suits, Smith & Wesson "knowingly sought to place its weapons in the hands of disturbed young men" negligently — and in violation of Illinois state consumer protection laws.

The complaints speculate — on the basis of "information and belief" alone — that alleged gunman Bobby Crimo bought a Smith & Wesson M&P15 model semiautomatic rifle "because he was influenced and enticed by Smith & Wesson's unfair and deceptive marketing."

The two gun shops — Bud's Gun Shop in Lexington, Kentucky, and Red Dot Arms in Lake Villa — are accused of aiding and abetting Crimo's "acquisition of an illegal assault rifle" on the basis of local ordinances in his hometowns that banned the possession of certain assault-style firearms, including the M&P15.

But authorities said Crimo legally purchased the firearms with a valid firearm owners identification, or FOID, card that Illinois State Police had issued him six months earlier. And while Highland Park and Highwood both had laws on the books defining and forbidding the possession of assault weapons within city limits, those ordinances did not make it illegal for residents of those towns to purchase such weapons and store them elsewhere.

Crimo, along with his father, is also named as defendant in the case, though neither sought to remove the case to federal court.

In a 55-page ruling, Seeger addressed four arguments Smith & Wesson offered in favor of establishing federal jurisdiction — that it was acting as a federal officer because gun regulations are strict; that there was a question of federal law baked into the middle of the allegations of violations of state law; that federal law completely preempts the suits; and that the survivors' attorneys had disguised federal claims in their state suit, the so-called "artful pleading doctrine."

The judge dismissed the firearm manufacturer's argument that the "unique, symbiotic manufacturer-ATF partnership created by the federal firearm laws," meant that it was "acting under" a federal officer — like a Pentagon contractor or a local sheriff's deputy on an FBI task force.

"The argument goes nowhere," Seeger said. "All regulations are mandatory. Regulatory compliance is not the same thing as aiding or helping a federal officer carry out his official duties."

As for whether the case hinges on matters of state law or federal law, Seeger found that a jury could issue a ruling on all the case on the basis of state law alone, so federal question jurisdiction also does not apply.

"A jury could decide the statutory claims without reaching any question of federal law. A violation of federal regulations is a possible basis for violating the state statutes, but it is not a necessary basis for violating the state statutes," the judge said. "A federal question is not embedded because answering a federal question is not unavoidable. There is another way out."

The gunmaker also argued that the National Firearm Act preempts state law in this case, since it allows for a lawsuit to challenge the ATF's determination that the M&P rifle is not subject to its 90-year-old ban on machineguns.

Seeger said such preemption only work for sections of the Labor Management Relations Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the National Bank Act, and in the 7th Circuit, the Federal Communications Act.

Because the NFA does not allow people to sue over violations of it, and because it does not include an explicit congressional intent to override state laws, Smith & Wesson's argument fails, the judge ruled.

Seeger also brushed off the gunmaker's suggestion of artful pleading on the part of the plaintiffs' attorneys.

"The Court can make short order of this argument. The artful pleading doctrine does not permit Smith & Wesson to remove this case," Seeger said.

"[A]s discussed above, this case does not present federal claims or necessarily raise a federal issue. So, Plaintiffs’ claims are not federal claims in disguise."

Antonio Romanucci who represents victims in the case, including the family of paralyzed boy Cooper Roberts, said Lake County residents should be the one to "determine what justice looks like." In a statement, he said his clients are pleased with the judge's ruling. he

“We believe the defendants should be held accountable to the laws of Illinois, and that having the cases in state court is just and fair," Romanucci said.

"Too many lives in and around Highland Park have been devastated by the death and catastrophic injury of loved ones, and we are fiercely committed to securing the justice they deserve.”

Earlier: Highland Park Shooting Survivors Sue Smith & Wesson, Gun Shops, Crimos