As their counsel they should have known better and appropriately advised/declined.
I'm all about the Second Amendment, and I understand that 'certain' protections from spurious, specious law suits has its place; but come-ON!
If possible can the Red team corporatists stifle their repulsion for Rachael Maddow and concentrate on the story and what is fair or just in this matter?
Not to mention the article is riddled with inaccuracies. "Retailers" don't manufacture shit number one. Manufactures don't sell directly to consumers number two, Gun manufacturers don't sell bullets number three.
and the biggest falsehood in the article is a falsehood of omission. This law requiring plaintiffs is hardly limited to gun manufacturers, it applies to all plaintiffs in all cases. If you are going to sue someone, make damn sure you have a winnable case, or the courts are going to force you to pay the legal costs of whoever you sued. This law is a good one, and may help eliminate frivolous lawsuits.
That is why I mentioned prosecuting the attorney(s) for not properly advising. THEY should have known of and advised the grieving parents of the actionable situation prosecuting this case could put them.
I do not feel it is either a gun manufactures, ammo manufacturers nor retailers responsibility if an individual uses a product made or sold in a felonious way. The parents; obviously grief stricken acted out either by unimaginable grief or erroneous recommendation. The "law" as it were is quite possibly being served; but what of the victims who by emotionally clouded thought, rabid anti gun zealots and IMO pitiful legal counsel must now bear this as well as the senseless murder of their 23yo daughter?
and the biggest falsehood in the article is a falsehood of omission. This law requiring plaintiffs is hardly limited to gun manufacturers, it applies to all plaintiffs in all cases. If you are going to sue someone, make damn sure you have a winnable case, or the courts are going to force you to pay the legal costs of whoever you sued. This law is a good one, and may help eliminate frivolous lawsuits.
I don't know if the plaintiffs have a case against their attys. They very well might if they can convince a judge/jury that the attys played on their grief and failed to warn them of the consequences, but I would bet money, a LOT of money that they signed a bunch of disclaimers stating the exact opposite that the their scum bag lawyers told them were simply "boiler plate"
They should have filed a civil suite against Holmes, the man who killed their daughter.
This is why I dislike the LEFT, the left believes that people should be outraged because of their ignorance of the law.
I'm all about the Second Amendment, and I understand that 'certain' protections from spurious, specious law suits has its place; but come-ON!
If possible can the Red team corporatists stifle their repulsion for Rachael Maddow and concentrate on the story and what is fair or just in this matter?
It's one thing to get a multi million dollar verdict, it's quite another to collect on one from a deadbeat.
I would trade a multi billion dollar verdict against the likes of you, for thirty minutes with the hooker of my choice, just for an example of course.
should be sued by their clients bc the judge has held the clients liable for legal costs incurred by the defendants in defending the lawsuit.
This was not a lawsuit brought by St. Croix’s lawyer Saul Goodman; this was a public interest lawsuit filed by Arnold and Porter, one of the top firms in the United States. They did not seek damages but only an injunction to stop these internet sellers from negligently entrusting dangerous gun related stuff to buyers about whom they know nothing. In other words, no contingent fee and maybe no atty fees at all.
And the lawsuit was backed and funded by the Brady organization. I would say there is almost zero chance that these lawyers did not advise the plaintiffs that there was a “loser pays” attorney fee provision in Colorado law for non -defect lawsuits against gun equipment sellers. I also suspect that the Brady organization has agreed to indemnify the plaintiffs for any amounts awarded.
But this horrible loser pays statute – which only applies to non-defect gun related lawsuits - is almost certainly unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Allege the same facts against GM and you don’t have to pay if your lawsuit gets tossed.
You can’t be punished for petitioning the government, and this is exactly what this statute does by mandating loser pays if a motion to dismiss is granted. Good citizens should be permitted to challenge this law without being cast into judgment for defense atty fees. Ms. Maddow is correct that the law is an outrage.
Look for this award to be vacated on appeal