Opinion ID: 2625
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Predicate Exception to Qualified Civil Liability Actions

Text: The Firearms Suppliers maintain that the PLCAA requires immediate dismissal of this suit, which is a qualified civil liability action under the statute. The PLCAA defines qualified civil liability action as a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product [i.e. a firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce],[ [3] ] or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party. 15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A). The PLCAA bars the commencement or the prosecution of qualified civil liability actions by providing as follows: (a) In general A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court. (b) Dismissal of pending actions A 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. The Act also sets forth certain exceptions to the definition of qualified civil liability action, allowing suits to proceed that meet any of the following criteria: (iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product [i.e., a firearm that has been shipped or transported through interstate or foreign commerce] knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including  (I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or (II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of Title 18; 15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A)(iii) (emphasis added). The City has predicated its claims in this case on the Firearms Suppliers' alleged violation of New York Penal Law § 240.45, Criminal Nuisance in the Second Degree, which provides: A person is guilty of criminal nuisance in the second degree when: 1. By conduct either unlawful in itself or unreasonable under all the circumstances, he knowingly or recklessly creates or maintains a condition which endangers the safety or health of a considerable number of persons; or 2. He knowingly conducts or maintains any premises, place or resort where persons gather for purposes of engaging in unlawful conduct. The City claims that its suit falls within the exception set forth in section 7903(5)(A)(iii) because New York Penal Law § 240.45 is a statute applicable to the sale or marketing of [firearms]. The Firearms Suppliers disagree, arguing that the predicate exception was intended to include statutes that specifically and expressly regulate the firearms industry. The District Court agreed with the City, finding that, [b]y its plain meaning, New York [Penal Law §] 240.45 satisfies the language of the predicate exception requiring a `statute applicable to the sale or marketing of [a firearm].' Beretta, 401 F.Supp.2d at 261. It is not disputed that New York Penal Law § 240.45 is a statute of general applicability that has never been applied to firearms suppliers for conduct like that complained of by the City.