Renzulli Law Firm

Another highly publicized piece of legislation which was recently enacted was the Colorado bill which institutes background checks for all gun sales and bans the sale of magazines which can hold more than 15 rounds.  This act, like the Connecticut and New York legislation, received a great deal of attention as another victory for gun control advocates.  The problem with so many of the news accounts, however, is that they spend so much time focusing on proposed restrictions and gun control legislation, that they give the impression that heightened gun control is the trend.  To put it bluntly, such a notion is debatable at best.

Breaking news in Connecticut is the new gun control legislation, which was signed into law by Governor Dannel Malloy on April 4, 2013. The 139-page bill was drafted by a bipartisan group of legislators, and is considered by many to impose the toughest gun laws in the nation.  The most prominent features of the new law are that it adds more than 100 firearms to the list of banned assault weapons in Connecticut, establishes a statewide registry for people convicted of crimes involving dangerous weapons for use by law enforcement, requires background checks on all weapon sales including those made at gun shows and limits the capacity of magazines to 10 rounds. 

The Unified Court System’s E-Discovery Working Group has proposed amending 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 202.12 of the Uniform Rules of the Trial Courts to require that attorneys confer on anticipated electronic discovery prior to the Preliminary Conference whenever electronic discovery is “reasonably likely.”  This requirement already exists in the Commercial Division, where all cases presumptively involve electronic discovery.  The purpose of expanding the requirement to non-Commercial Division cases is to identify and address any electronic discovery disputes early, so as to avoid discovery motion practice that can arise later in the case. 

Although foreseeability is often said to be an issue which is left for the jury in products liability cases, RLF recently obtained summary judgment in favor of a manufacturer on that very issue.  In granting the motion for summary judgment and dismissing the case, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma found, among other things, that plaintiff used the product in an unforeseeable manner and that the manufacturer, therefore, had no duty to warn of risks associated with that use.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania recently granted the summary judgment motion that RLF (“RLF”) filed on behalf of its clients, a major firearms manufacturer and a firearms distributor.  In addition, the Court granted RLF’s motion for monetary sanctions against the plaintiffs’ counsel and his firm pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for persisting with a lawsuit that RLF demonstrated lacked any evidentiary support.

In their most recent issue of Bullet Points, National Shooting Sports Foundation featured Renzulli Law Firm’s summary judgment and sanctions win for Beemiller and MKS Supply.

For further information concerning this litigation, please contact Christopher Renzulli.