(Legal Newsline) – Firearms manufacturer Sig Sauer has two weeks to convince a federal judge to preserve what could possibly be a key defense in a lawsuit brought against it by the State of New Jersey.
U.S. magistrate judge Jessica Allen on Monday recommended the case, which seeks a recall of the popular P320 handgun, be heard in a New Jersey state court. The gun is a target of litigation alleging it goes off unexpectedly but, Sig Sauer says, was designed to military specifics.
That triggers the federal officer removal statute, which allows companies acting under the federal government to argue in federal court that a product’s design was created under the direction of the government. It has been cited in some of the most notable mass torts in the country, like 3M earplugs and alleged PFAS contamination.
“The complaint threatens to trample on fundamental Second Amendment rights and would directly challenge an exhaustive federal contracting review process through which the United States Army approved the exact design of internal safeties included in all P320 firearms that the Attorney General contends are defective,” Sig Sauer’s notice of removal says.
But Allen disagreed in a hearing then entered a report and recommendation that district judge Susan Wigenton send New Jersey’s case back to state court. The company has 14 days to file objections to the report in an effort to sway Wigenton.
The pistol is the subject of hundreds of claims by private individuals who claim it fired without the trigger being pulled. In October, former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin joined the fight against the company with a case that seeks a recall and a change to how the gun is marketed.
New AG Jennifer Davenport now leads the case. Platkin’s complaint cited the case of Orange Police Department detective Walter Imbert, who was allegedly killed when the gun went off as he prepared to clean it. Sig Sauer removed the case to federal court on Nov. 20.
Sig Sauer argues military and federal law enforcement agencies would be unable to arm their officers with the P320 if the recall is granted.
Verdicts have gone both ways in trials against Sig Sauer, and a Philadelphia jury last year awarded $11 million in one man’s case.
In September, a Missouri federal judge certified a class in a class action brought under the state’s Merchandising Practices Act that says customers wouldn’t have paid for or paid as much as for the P320 if they knew of the dangers of unintentional firing.
Lawyers at Terrell Marshall Law Group on Nov. 17 filed a Washington class action under the state’s Consumer Protection Act. The lawsuits say the P320 has a three-part design defect that renders it unreasonably dangerous.
The pistol is fully energized and ready to fire the instant a round is chambered, the suits say, plus a sensitive trigger. The Philadelphia firm Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky had been suing Sig Sauer in its home state, New Hampshire, before a Nov. 24 suit in Philadelphia federal court on behalf of more than 60 clients – some of whom are the spouses of gun-owners allegedly injured by an unintentional firing.
Legislation passed this year in New Hampshire protects Sig Sauer from future lawsuits there.
“Sig Sauer’s gamesmanship in blocking access to justice in New Hampshire is the sole reason why the undersigned firm is filing this action in Pennsylvania…” Saltz Mongeluzi’s complaint says.
