Sandy Hook Families Hire Ex-SG Don Verrilli for Fight With Gunmaker Remington
Verrilli is leading the plaintiffs' case before the U.S. Supreme Court, as Remington argues that federal law protects it from liability in the 2012 school shooting.
October 04, 2019 at 05:31 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Connecticut Law Tribune
The families of victims of the Sandy Hook school shooting have retained former U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. to represent them in their U.S. Supreme Court fight with gunmaker Remington Arms Co. LLC.
Court filings show Verrilli, of Washington, D.C.-based Munger, Tolles & Olson, is now the counsel of record for the plaintiffs. He filed a brief on their behalf Friday to oppose Remington's attempt to have the U.S. Supreme Court rule that a federal law shields it from liability in the Sandy Hook case.
Verrilli is among the highest-profile attorneys in the country.
Earlier this year, he was part of a team of lawyers representing the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, which sought to fight back attempts by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and other states to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. Verrilli and fellow former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson are also set to square off this month before the country's high court to resolve a complex dispute over the status of an oversight board that the U.S. Congress established in 2016 to help Puerto Rico recover from a financial crisis.
Verrilli has now teamed with Munger Tolles colleagues Elaine Goldenberg, Rachel Miller-Ziegler, David Fry, Benjamin Horwich, Justin Raphael and Teresa Reed Dippo. They join with Connecticut attorneys Josh Koskoff, Alinor Sterling and Katherine Mesner-Hage of Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder.
Opposing counsel are Swanson Martin & Bell Chicago attorneys James Vogts and Andrew Lothson, and Baker Botts litigators Scott Keller and Stephanie Cagniart. The Remington defense team did not respond to a request for comment Friday, and neither did Verrilli.
The litigation stemmed from the 2012 mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, where gunman Adam Lanza used a Remington rifle to kill 20 schoolchildren and six educators.
Remington has argued it should not be held responsible for the lone gunman's actions, and rejected criticism of its marketing approaches. In an Aug. 1 petition for a writ of certiorari, the company cited the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields firearm makers from liability when their products are used in violent acts.
But the Connecticut Supreme Court rejected that argument, and ruled Remington could be sued under an exception to the law, allowing the lawsuit to proceed under state law.
In the opening comments of its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Remington makes it clear it's pinning its hopes on the 2005 law.
"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act 'generally preempts claims against manufacturers and sellers of firearms and ammunition resulting from the criminal use of those products,'" the company wrote in its appeal.
"The Connecticut Supreme Court below held that the PLCAA's predicate exception encompasses all general statutes merely capable of being applied to firearms sales or marketing," Remington wrote. "In contrast, both the Second and Ninth Circuits have rejected this broad interpretation of the predicate exception, which would swallow the PLCAA's immunity rule."
But in their brief in opposition Friday, the families reiterated their assertion that Lanza used a weapon of war that has no place in a civilized society, other than in the military.
"The Sandy Hook victims were slain in a commando-style assault on the school," the brief reads. "Their killer's weapons of choice was a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, manufactured and marketed by petitioners. The XM15-E2S was designed for military combat, specifically to inflict maximum lethal harm on the enemy."
With regard to the gunmaker's argument under the PLCAA, the families attorneys wrote that "The Connecticut Supreme Court's interlocutory decision is not within this court's certiorari jurisdiction" under the U.S. Code.
"Nor does it present a question worthy of this count's review. Petitioners' claim of a conflict with the federal court of appeals decision is contrived," the petition argues.
The Koskoff firm brought suit in 2014 on behalf of the families of nine of the victims, in seeking financial damages against Remington and its daughter company, Bushmaster Firearms International LLC.
In a statement Friday, the firm said: "Remington, the NRA and political allies have asked the Supreme Court to throw away longstanding precedent and norms governing review in order to shield them from facing the Sandy Hook families."
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the Week: After a 74-Day Trial, Shook Fends Off Claims From Artist’s Heirs Against UMB Bank
‘It's Your Funeral’: Avoiding Doing Damage to Your Client’s Case With Uncivil Behavior
Tips From—and About—the New Judges on the Northern District of California Bench
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250