Latest news with #lawsuits
The Independent
a day ago
- Politics
- The Independent
New Hampshire's new law protecting gunmakers faces first test in court over Sig Sauer lawsuit
A new state law in New Hampshire that makes it harder to take gunmaker Sig Sauer to court is getting its first test before a judge on Monday. The 2-month-old law was created by the Republican-led Legislature in response to mounting lawsuits faced by the Newington-based manufacturer over its popular P320 pistol. The lawsuits say that the gun can go off without the trigger being pulled, an allegation Sig Sauer denies. Sig Sauer, which employs over 2,000 people in New Hampshire, said the gun is safe and the problem is user error. Several large, multi-plaintiff cases filed since 2022 in New Hampshire's federal court representing nearly 80 people accuse Sig Sauer of defective product design, marketing, and negligence, in addition to lawsuits filed in other states. Many of the plaintiffs are current and former law enforcement officers who say they were wounded by the gun. They say the P320 design requires an external mechanical safety, a feature that is optional. The most recent New Hampshire case, representing 22 plaintiffs in 16 states, was filed in March. It's the focus of Monday's hearing. The new law on product liability claims against Sig Sauer and other gun manufacturers covers the 'absence or presence' of the external safety and several other optional features. Claims can still be filed over manufacturing defects. Attorneys for Sig Sauer argue it should apply to the March case, even though the law didn't exist at the time. 'New Hampshire has a clearly articulated position against such claims being cognizable in this state,' they argue in court documents for breaking up the cases and transferring them to court districts where the plaintiffs live. Lawyers from a Philadelphia-based firm representing the plaintiffs, disagree, saying the law 'has zero implication' on the case and only applies to future lawsuits. New Hampshire was the chosen location because federal rules allow lawsuits against a company in its home state, the plaintiff's attorneys say. Those lawsuits have been assigned to one federal judge in Concord. Sig Sauer is trying to decentralize the case, they say. Sig Sauer has prevailed in some cases. It has appealed two recent multimillion-dollar verdicts against it, in Pennsylvania and Georgia. A judge recently allowed the Pennsylvania verdict to stand, but vacated $10 million in punitive damages awarded to the plaintiff.
Associated Press
a day ago
- Politics
- Associated Press
New Hampshire's new law protecting gunmakers faces first test in court over Sig Sauer lawsuit
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A new state law in New Hampshire that makes it harder to take gunmaker Sig Sauer to court is getting its first test before a judge on Monday. The 2-month-old law was created by the Republican-led Legislature in response to mounting lawsuits faced by the Newington-based manufacturer over its popular P320 pistol. The lawsuits say that the gun can go off without the trigger being pulled, an allegation Sig Sauer denies. Sig Sauer, which employs over 2,000 people in New Hampshire, said the gun is safe and the problem is user error. Several large, multi-plaintiff cases filed since 2022 in New Hampshire's federal court representing nearly 80 people accuse Sig Sauer of defective product design, marketing, and negligence, in addition to lawsuits filed in other states. Many of the plaintiffs are current and former law enforcement officers who say they were wounded by the gun. They say the P320 design requires an external mechanical safety, a feature that is optional. The most recent New Hampshire case, representing 22 plaintiffs in 16 states, was filed in March. It's the focus of Monday's hearing. The new law on product liability claims against Sig Sauer and other gun manufacturers covers the 'absence or presence' of the external safety and several other optional features. Claims can still be filed over manufacturing defects. Attorneys for Sig Sauer argue it should apply to the March case, even though the law didn't exist at the time. 'New Hampshire has a clearly articulated position against such claims being cognizable in this state,' they argue in court documents for breaking up the cases and transferring them to court districts where the plaintiffs live. Lawyers from a Philadelphia-based firm representing the plaintiffs, disagree, saying the law 'has zero implication' on the case and only applies to future lawsuits. New Hampshire was the chosen location because federal rules allow lawsuits against a company in its home state, the plaintiff's attorneys say. Those lawsuits have been assigned to one federal judge in Concord. Sig Sauer is trying to decentralize the case, they say. Sig Sauer has prevailed in some cases. It has appealed two recent multimillion-dollar verdicts against it, in Pennsylvania and Georgia. A judge recently allowed the Pennsylvania verdict to stand, but vacated $10 million in punitive damages awarded to the plaintiff.
Washington Post
a day ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
Trump officials accused of defying 1 in 3 judges who ruled against him
President Donald Trump and his appointees have been accused of flouting courts in a third of the more than 160 lawsuits against the administration in which a judge has issued a substantive ruling, a Washington Post analysis has found, suggesting widespread noncompliance with America's legal system. Plaintiffs say Justice Department lawyers and the agencies they represent are snubbing rulings, providing false information, failing to turn over evidence, quietly working around court orders and inventing pretexts to carry out actions that have been blocked.
Forbes
2 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Justice Department Urges Dismissal Of Maryland Climate Lawsuits
Pam Bondi, US attorney general, center, and Todd Blanche, US deputy attorney general, during a news ... More conference in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Friday, June 27, 2025. President Trump says the US has made a trade deal with 'probably four or five different countries,' naming agreements with China and the UK. Photographer: Yuri Gripas/Abaca/Bloomberg The U.S. Department of Justice waded into a case before the Maryland Supreme Court last week, filing an amicus brief urging dismissal of climate lawsuits targeting an array of the nation's largest oil and gas companies. The DOJ brief was one of eight - including one filed by 24 state attorneys general led by Alabama - filed in the Maryland case, which has yet to be scheduled for oral arguments. All of the briefs ask the court to uphold lower court dismissals of cases involving Baltimore, Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County which demand compensation for ill-defined damages allegedly arising from global emissions caused by burning of oil and gas. State Judge Steven Platt dismissed the Annapolis and Anne Arundel County case on January 16, 2025, and Baltimore's case was dismissed by Judge Videtta Brown on July 10, 2024. Following appeals by the plaintiffs, the cases were since combined into a single case before the Maryland high court since they all involve essentially the same arguments. A Nationwide Campaign of Climate Lawsuits That latter fact is unsurprising since these cases are part of a nationwide lawfare campaign organized by a handful of law firms - most notably the Sher Edling Firm in San Francisco - in which local governments are convinced to serve as the plaintiffs in hopes of securing lucrative settlements from 'Big Oil.' To this point, the campaign, which dates back to at least 2018, has seen little success, with at least 9 similar cases having been poured out of lower courts around the country. The arguments made by DOJ and others in this week's briefs reflect similar arguments made by defendants like Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sunoco, and BP in all of these lawfare cases for the better part of a decade. That is also not surprising, given that the legal principles at stake in these suits have been well established by longstanding court precedent and the prevailing federal environmental statutes. In every case, the central question judges have had to decide is whether local or state governments can be allowed to essentially regulate air emissions, which have always been regulated at the national level for compelling reasons. The brief filed by the DOJ gets to the nub of this central issue almost immediately. 'Even a cursory reading of Plaintiffs' complaints shows that these cases aren't just about local matters, or even Maryland ones. Given that Plaintiffs' claims take aim at worldwide activities, these consolidated appeals implicate substantial federal interests," the DOJ states, later adding, 'the statute [The Clean Air Act] contemplates no role for states reaching out and applying their law in other states.' The reality at stake here is that, were state government allowed to promulgate their own air quality regulations, it would become extremely difficult and costly for any company to continue to do business in the U.S. due to having to comply with a patchwork of 50 differing regulatory schemes rather than a single national structure. Complexity and costs would rise exponentially should the courts give thousands of local governments similar powers. The 24 state attorneys general hit the same point on page 11 of their brief, stating, 'Cases involving interstate emissions - i.e., the pollution of air and water within one State from sources in another State - are interstate controversies that implicate the conflicting rights of States. Accordingly, the federal judiciary has understood for well 'over a century' the need for federal resolution of such disputes.' Professor Richard A. Epstein and Professor John Yoo, filing with the Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF), take the point even further. 'No matter how they try to mask their aims, the plaintiffs/appellants want to misuse the settled laws of nuisance and misrepresentation against the defendants in these cases to set nationwide climate policy, all in violation of federal law and sound tort principles.' Later in the brief, the professors and MSLF later warn, 'Every producer, user, and consumer of fossil fuels, and every entity in the supply chain in between, could become the next defendant… This Court should affirm the decisions below… and reject limitless theories of tort liability.' The Road Ahead For These Climate Lawsuits Again, every one of the suits filed as part of this organized lawfare campaign have featured the same plaintiff complaints and defendant arguments, involving to the same prevailing legal principles. It has all become a burden on the court system that cries out for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in with a ruling to inform the lower courts. Defendants in a case brought by the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii, asked the nation's highest court to do just that in an appeal filed last fall. But the justices ruled in January that case is not yet ripe and remanded it back to Hawaii's Supreme Court for further consideration. Should the Maryland court rule against them, the oil company defendants in the case would almost certainly file an appeal into the federal courts. It is less clear what the plaintiffs would do in the event of an adverse decision. The one thing about this costly, tiresome exercise that is crystal clear is that, until the U.S. Supreme Court finally weighs in on these climate lawsuits, they will continue to increase the cost of energy for everyone.
The Independent
6 days ago
- The Independent
Survivors' lawyers say Illinois has one of nation's worst records on sex abuse in juvenile detention
Illinois has one of the nation's worst problems with child sex abuse at juvenile detention centers, attorneys representing more than 900 survivors who have filed lawsuits said Wednesday. Dozens of complaints, including several filed this week in Chicago, allege decades of systemic abuse of children by the employees of detention facilities. Similar lawsuits have popped up in states including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, but Illinois stands out for the volume of cases that began piling up last year and the lackluster response from state leaders, according to attorneys. 'The scale and the magnitude and the severity of these cases are some of the worst we've seen all over the United States,' Jerome Block, an attorney who has filed lawsuits nationwide, said at a news conference. The latest Illinois complaints, filed Tuesday, represent 107 people who experienced abuse as children at 10 centers statewide. Some have since closed. The lawsuits allege abuse from the mid-1990s to 2018, including rape, forced masturbation and beatings by chaplains, counselors, officers and kitchen supervisors. The Associated Press does not typically name people who say they were sexually assaulted unless they consent to being identified or decide to tell their stories publicly, as some who have filed lawsuits have done. Most plaintiffs are identified by initials in the lawsuits. Survivor Kate-Lynn, who appeared at a Chicago news conference, said she only felt comfortable speaking publicly using her first name. The Illinois woman, now 26, said she was held in solitary confinement at a suburban Chicago facility for a year when she was 14. She said she was sexually and physically abused by at least five staff members who came into her cell and stripped her naked. As she spoke, a fellow survivor who also planned to speak became overcome with emotion and left the room. He didn't return. Kate-Lynn said she has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety. 'Going to public places is very hard for me,' she said, wiping tears at times. 'I feel like I 'm going to be attacked when dealing with authority figures." The lawsuits, first filed in May 2024, and they are slowly making their way through the courts. Two lawsuits against the state — representing 83 people — were filed in the Illinois Court of Claims and seek damages of roughly $2 million per plaintiff, the most allowed under law. Separate lawsuits representing 24 people held as children at a Chicago center, were filed in Cook County and seek more than $100,000 per plaintiff. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, who represents the state, has tried to dismiss the cases in court. Raoul, whose office has investigated church sex abuse cases, declined to comment Wednesday as did officials with the Department of Juvenile Justice and Cook County. The lawsuits also name the state of Illinois and the Department of Corrections. Officials for the governor's office and Corrections did not return messages Wednesday. While the number of lawsuits grows, few cases have gone to trial or resulted in settlements. Arrests are infrequent. Many alleged offenders are not named in the lawsuits, represented by initials or physical descriptions as the plaintiffs remembered them. There are several alleged repeat offenders, including a corrections officer who currently serves as a small-town Illinois mayor and was accused separately by 15 people. He has denied the allegations. Attorneys have called for legislative hearings, outside monitors, victim input and criminal charges by local authorities. Block has also harshly criticized Illinois leaders, including Raoul, saying there is a double standard for the abuse victims juvenile detention centers versus church abuse victims. 'When it's the state who perpetrated the abuse, when it's state employees who perpetrated the abuse rather than Catholic priests, the attorney general doesn't want to support the survivors,' he said. Horrific accounts are detailed in the hundreds of pages of complaints. Many plaintiffs said their abusers threatened them with violence, solitary confinement and longer sentences if they reported the abuse. Others were given fast food, candy, cigarettes or the chance to play videos games if they kept quiet. Another survivor, a 40-year-old Texas man identified in the lawsuit by the initials J.B. 2, said he was abused when he was 14 years old and staying a facility in St. Charles, which is outside Chicago. He issued a statement through attorneys. 'I want to let my fellow survivors know that we are not alone in this,' he wrote. 'Speaking your truth, no matter how gruesome it is, it can help to set you free from yourself and all the hurt that's been bottled up.'
