## Facts

- On August 10, 1999, Buford Furrow carried multiple firearms he possessed illegally and shot children at a Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills, California, then later shot and killed postal worker Joseph Ileto.
- Victims and survivors sued Glock, Inc. (a federally licensed firearms manufacturer) and RSR entities (federally licensed distributors/sellers), among others, seeking damages and other relief.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants intentionally and recklessly marketed and distributed more firearms than legitimate demand to increase downstream resale, foreseeably supplying illegal purchasers and criminals.
- Claims against Glock and RSR were pleaded under California common law and general statutes, including negligence, negligent entrustment, and public nuisance; plaintiffs did not allege violation of a specific firearm-regulating sales or marketing statute.
- While the case was pending, Congress enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which generally requires dismissal of specified civil actions against licensed firearm manufacturers and sellers arising from criminal misuse of nondefective firearms.
- On remand after PLCAA, the district court dismissed claims against Glock and RSR under PLCAA, but declined to dismiss claims against Norinco, an unlicensed foreign manufacturer, because it did not fall within PLCAA’s covered categories.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs’ negligence and public nuisance claims against licensed firearm entities were barred as a PLCAA “qualified civil liability action” based on harm resulting from a third party’s criminal misuse of firearms.
2. Whether the claims fit PLCAA’s “predicate exception” for knowing violation of a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms that proximately caused the harm.
3. Whether PLCAA is unconstitutional (including under due process, federalism, and separation-of-powers theories) as applied to pending state-law suits.
4. Whether an unlicensed foreign firearms manufacturer is a covered “manufacturer” or “seller” under PLCAA such that dismissal is required.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of all claims against Glock and the RSR entities as barred by PLCAA.
- The court held the action against Glock and RSR was a prohibited “qualified civil liability action” because it sought to impose liability on licensed firearm entities for injuries caused by a third party’s criminal misuse of nondefective firearms.
- The court held the predicate exception did not apply because plaintiffs did not allege a knowing violation of a firearm-specific statute regulating sales or marketing; reliance on general negligence and nuisance provisions was insufficient.
- The court rejected plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges and upheld PLCAA as a valid exercise of federal power.
- The court affirmed the denial of Norinco’s PLCAA-based dismissal motion because Norinco was not a covered licensed “manufacturer” or “seller” under the statute’s definitions.

## Legal Principles

- PLCAA requires dismissal of civil actions against covered, federally licensed firearm manufacturers and sellers seeking damages or other relief for harm resulting from a third party’s criminal or unlawful misuse of nondefective firearms, subject to enumerated exceptions.
- PLCAA’s predicate exception applies only when the defendant knowingly violates a state or federal statute that specifically regulates firearms or otherwise meaningfully regulates the sale or marketing of firearms, and that violation proximately causes the injury.
- General state tort duties and nuisance statutes of broad applicability do not qualify as predicate statutes; reading them as predicates would nullify PLCAA’s immunity scheme.
- Congress may preempt state-law causes of action affecting interstate commerce and may apply such substantive changes to pending cases without violating due process, federalism, or separation of powers, so long as courts continue to apply the law to facts rather than follow case-specific directives.
- PLCAA coverage is limited by statutory definitions to licensed entities; unlicensed foreign manufacturers outside those definitions are not entitled to PLCAA’s dismissal protection.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that PLCAA preempted and required dismissal of California negligence and public nuisance claims against licensed firearm manufacturer and seller defendants arising from a shooter’s criminal acts, narrowly construed the predicate exception to require violation of a firearm-specific sales or marketing statute, upheld PLCAA’s constitutionality, and allowed claims to proceed against an unlicensed foreign manufacturer not covered by the Act.


Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2009)