Assault

January 13, 2020

Further erosion of the ban of lawsuits against gun manufacturers

Lots-of-Guns-300x200 As I explored in a previous blog, the Protection of Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7901 (2005), et seq., (“PLCAA”) has shielded gun manufacturers from suit since its enactment in 2005. The law bars any civil liability action against a firearms dealer or manufacturer, except for certain limited exceptions. My previous blog revolved around the parents of the victims killed in the Sandy Hook massacre, who survived summary judgment on a motion conceived under PLCAA filed by the defendant, Remington Arms Company. Now, the city of Kansas City is bringing a claim against a manufacturer and several firearms dealers, which may further chip away at the Act’s once impenetrable protection.

PLCAA’s protection is broad. 1515 U.S.C. § 7902 provides that “[a] qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court” against a firearms manufacturer or dealer. The definition of a qualified civil liability action is explored in § 7902, which defines the term broadly, encompassing ostensibly all civil claims against licensed gun dealers and manufacturers. However, § 7903(A) identifies certain claims that will not be considered a qualified action.

Contractual disputes or claims for breach of warranty are not qualified actions. § 7903(5)(A)(iv). Neither are claims related to defective design or manufacture of a firearm. § 7903(5)(A)(v). Claims arising out of negligent entrustment, where a manufacturer or a dealer puts a firearm into the hands of someone likely to injure themselves or others, are permitted. § 7903(5)(A)(ii; § 7903(5)(B). Similarly, if a manufacturer or dealer knowingly provides a gun to a person intending to commit a crime of violence or engage in drug trafficking, immunity from suit is not available. § 7903(5)(A)(i).

October 16, 2017

Los Angeles Parking Lot Beating Victim Sues Dodgers

by Neumann Law Group

Two people recently filed a California premises liability claim based on an alleged beating in the Dodger Stadium parking lot following a 2015 playoff game. The victim claims to have suffered a traumatic brain injury from the attack. The plaintiffs filed suit in L.A. Superior Court against the Dodgers and the two alleged attackers. The lawsuit claims negligence, negligent hiring, premises liability, intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, assault, and loss of consortium. The victim’s wife claims she has lost the companionship and love of her husband since he was injured.According to court documents, the victim attended the first game of the National League Division Series on October 9, 2015 against the Mets. He is a Dodgers fan, but his cousin, also in attendance, is a Mets fan who wore a Mets hat.

The Mets won the game. The victim and his friends left the stadium at around 10 p.m. Outside, they were confronted by the assailants, who shouted vulgarities at the group. By the time the group reached the handicapped parking area, the assailants began to “brutally attack” him. One of them allegedly struck the victim in the head. Losing consciousness, he fell to the pavement. The assailants nonetheless began to kick the victim while he lay unconscious on the ground.

Despite that thousands of people were filing out of Dodger Stadium at the time of the attack, the lawsuit claims no security was present. Moreover, it took several minutes for the security to respond to the scene where the victim was attacked, even though it was very close to the stadium gates. The lawsuit alleges the Dodgers negligently failed to provide adequate lighting and security that could have prevented the attack.

June 8, 2017

Southern California Tourist Suing Planet Hollywood in Vegas for Mannequin Scare Injury

by Neumann Law Group

A Southern California man recently filed a lawsuit for negligence and assault against a Las Vegas hotel, claiming a mannequin inside his hotel room frightened him and caused him to suffer injuries while fleeing.The plaintiff filed the lawsuit against Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino in Clark County District Court. He is seeking over $10,000 in damages.

October 21, 2016

Inmate’s Daughter Sues California DOC For Wrongful Death Following Prison Murder

by Neumann Law Group

A recent lawsuit filed in federal court in California claims officials should have prevented the death of California inmate Hugo Pinell, who was killed just two weeks after being released into the general prison population last August. Pinell was revered by civil rights activists for his role in California’s prisoner rights movement of the 1960s.Born in Nicaragua, Pinell was convicted of rape at age 19 and sentenced to life in prison in 1965. Pinell had been in solitary confinement since a violent escape attempt from San Quentin in 1971, which left six dead, including three prison guards and Black Panther activist and inmate George Jackson. Pinell was deemed one of the “San Quentin Six” for slitting the throats of several guards during the botched attempt. After what was at the time the longest trial in California history, Pinell was given a third life sentence for his involvement in the incident.

October 14, 2016

Assaulted Student Wants Lawsuit Against Oklahoma Football Player to Remain in California to Avoid Bias

by Neumann Law Group

In 2014, University of Oklahoma senior Amelia Molitor was struck in the face by football star Joe Mixon in a campus cafe. Molitor, 22, filed suit for negligence this summer in the Northern District of California. (She was able to do so because Mixon is from California.) Mixon seeks to move the lawsuit to federal court in Oklahoma.Mixon punched Molitor in the face during an altercation, causing her to suffer fractured bones and necessitating her jaw to be wired shut. Mixon claims he acted in self-defense. He was suspended from the football team for a season following the altercation and charged criminally with misdemeanor assault. Pursuant to a plea deal, Mixon was placed on probation for one year and required to undergo counseling and complete 100 hours of community service. Mixon took an Alford plea, which means he could accept the deal while maintaining his innocence. He presumably took the Alford plea so that a guilty plea wouldn’t be used against him in the subsequent civil lawsuit.

Judge James Donato will hold a hearing on the motion to change venue and the motion to dismiss this week in San Francisco.

July 14, 2016

Los Angeles Startup Faces Explosive Lawsuit from Co-founder

by Neumann Law Group

In a lawsuit filed on July 12 in Los Angeles Superior Court, Silicon Valley insider Shervin Pishevar was accused of mismanaging his latest startup, Hyperloop One, a company aiming to create a high-speed train.The lawsuit was filed by Brogan BamBrogan, who co-founded the Los Angeles-based startup with Pishevar in 2014, and three other former executives. He is suing Hyperloop One, Pishevar (the company’s executive chairman), and three others associated with the company. BamBrogan alleges that Hyperloop’s executives breached their fiduciary duty by placing their own interests above those of Hyperloop One. The causes of action include wrongful termination, breach of contract, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and assault.