Opinion ID: 2625
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: The action giving rise to this appeal was commenced on June 20, 2000, when the City filed a complaint against the Firearms Suppliers seeking injunctive relief and abatement of the alleged public nuisance caused by the Firearms Suppliers' distribution practices. The City claimed that the Firearms Suppliers market guns to legitimate buyers with the knowledge that those guns will be diverted through various mechanisms into illegal markets. The City also claimed that the Firearms Suppliers fail to take reasonable steps to inhibit the flow of firearms into illegal markets. On October 2, 2001, the action was stayed due to issues arising from the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. The initial stay of sixty days was continued pending the outcome of an appeal proceeding in state court involving the same claims for relief sought by the State of New York against most of the defendants in this action. See Spitzer v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., 309 A.D.2d 91, 761 N.Y.S.2d 192, 194-95, leave to appeal denied, 100 N.Y.2d 514, 769 N.Y.S.2d 200, 801 N.E.2d 421 (2003) (affirming dismissal of the state's common law public nuisance claim). After the stay was lifted, the City filed a Second Amended Complaint (Amended Complaint) on January 27, 2004. On October 26, 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Pub.L. No. 109-92, 119 Stat. 2095 (codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-03) (the PLCAA or the Act) became federal law. The PLCAA provides that any 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(b). A qualified civil liability action is a civil action or proceeding . . . brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a [firearm distributed in interstate or foreign commerce] . . . 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 [firearm distributed in interstate or foreign commerce] by the person or a third party. 15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A). On the day the PLCAA was enacted, the Firearms Suppliers moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to section 7902(b). In its opposition to the Firearms Suppliers' motion to dismiss, the City argued that the Act did not bar its causes of action because this case fell within an exception to the forbidden qualified civil liability actions. Pursuant to an exception written into the Act, a suit may proceed when a plaintiff adequately alleges that a manufacturer or seller of [firearms transported in interstate or foreign commerce] knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of [firearms], and the violation was the proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought. 15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A)(iii). This provision has been called the predicate exception, which appellation we adopt. For purposes of this opinion, a statute upon which a case is brought under the predicate exception is referred to as a predicate statute. The predicate statute at issue in this case is New York Penal Law § 240.45, Criminal Nuisance in the Second Degree. [1] The Firearms Suppliers claimed that New York Penal Law § 240.45 may not serve as a predicate statute because the predicate exception is meant to apply to statutes that are expressly and specifically applicable to the sale and marketing of firearms, and not to statutes of general applicability, such as section 240.45. The City also challenged the constitutionality of the Act on various grounds. The United States intervened to defend the constitutionality of the PLCAA, taking no position on the PLCAA's effect, if any, on the litigation. On December 2, 2005, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Weinstein, J. ) denied the Firearms Suppliers' motion to dismiss, finding that the claim restriction provisions of the PLCAA did not require dismissal of the case at bar. City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 401 F.Supp.2d 244 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). The District Court held 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].' Id. at 261. The District Court also found that if the Act did operate to bar the City's claims, it would be constitutional. Id. at 251. The District Court certified its December 2, 2005 order for immediate appeal to this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Id. at 298 (There is a substantial ground for disagreement about a controlling issue of law  the applicability of the Act to the present litigation  and an immediate appeal may substantially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.). The Firearms Suppliers appeal from the District Court's denial of their motion to dismiss, and the City cross appeals from the District Court's holding that the PLCAA is constitutional. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the City's claim, predicated on New York Penal Law § 240.45, does not fall within an exception to the claim restricting provisions of the Act because that statute does not fall within the contours of the Act's predicate exception. We also hold that the PLCAA is a valid exercise of the powers granted to Congress pursuant to the Commerce Clause and that the PLCAA does not violate the doctrine of separation of powers or otherwise offend the Constitution in any manner alleged by the City.