Sturm Ruger: NJ Lawsuit Dismissed With Prejudice

Yahoo ^ | March 15, 2004 | Dow Jones Business News

[neverdem]

SOUTHPORT, Conn. (Dow Jones)--Sturm, Ruger & Co. (NYSE:RGR - News) said a trial court dismissed with prejudice a lawsuit filed against the company and other gun makers by the city of Newark, N.J.

In a press release Monday, Sturm, Ruger said it dismissed the case because the city failed to meet the requirements of a prior court order. The City of Newark needed to fulfill those requirements in order to apply for a reinstatement of the complaint prior to the March 1 deadline.

Because the case was dismissed with prejudice, Newark won't be allowed to file the lawsuit again.

Following the ruling, Sturm, Ruger called for a federal law to prevent other lawsuits targeting gun makers for the use of their guns in crimes.

Similar lawsuits filed by state and local governments, such as New York and Jersey City, N.J., were dismissed last year.

The City of Newark wasn't immediately available to comment.

Company Web site: http://www.ruger-firearms.com

-Ian Salisbury; Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-5400

Order free Annual Report for Sturm Ruger & Company Inc.

Visit http://djnewswires.ar.wilink.com/?link=RGR or call 1-888-301-0513

[neverdem]

Sanity in New Jersey, what will happen next?

[neverdem]

BANG

[GrandEagle]

Sanity in New Jersey
must have been an accident huh?

[jwalsh07]

Crack.

[Blood of Tyrants]

You can guarantee that the judge did everything in his power to help the gun-grabbers' case along but in the end, he HAD to put some type of demands on the city of Newark or appear that he was completely biased against Ruger.

[AreaMan]

Because the case was dismissed with prejudice, Newark won't be allowed to file the lawsuit again.

It couldn't happen to a nicer town.

[Hacksaw]

Whoo-Hoo!!!!

[longtermmemmory]

Interestif point of the gun-grabbers decide to appeal and loose. It they loose they create case law which can be used on other courts.

However if they don't appeal, they are still doa.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Bang

[sam_paine]

....if they LOSE.....

[blau993]

In a press release Monday, Sturm, Ruger said it dismissed the case because the city failed to meet the requirements of a prior court order. The City of Newark needed to fulfill those requirements in order to apply for a reinstatement of the complaint prior to the March 1 deadline.

I would be interested in comments from those who are familiar with the case. It sounds like the judge may have given the City a chance to fix whatever he thought was wrong with the City's complaint, but the City's lawyers either decided they couldn't fix it or screwed up and missed the deadline.

[ZULU]

If New Jersey is the Butt of the Country, Newark is where they would stick the nozzle.

This sewer is the product of a series of increasing corrupt and crooked regimes, and this just the latest in a serie of attempts to get other people to pay for problems they themselves have created.

[Shooter 2.5]

Following the ruling, Sturm, Ruger called for a federal law to prevent other lawsuits targeting gun makers for the use of their guns in crimes.

This won't happen until more dems in the Senate are voted out of office.

[freedomluvr1778]

I would be interested in comments from those who are familiar with the case. It sounds like the judge may have given the City a chance to fix whatever he thought was wrong with the City's complaint, but the City's lawyers either decided they couldn't fix it or screwed up and missed the deadline.

If I recall correctly, I think it was something like this: The City filed the suit saying that Ruger had manufactured a product they knew would end up in criminal hands and that the "design of the gun" lead to its criminal use. Also included something like "recklessly" sold to dealers who's guns have ended up in the hands of criminals. Problem was, if I remember correctly, they had no evidence of this, and insisted that it would be too costly to gather the evidence, and thus, they shouldn't have to provide evidence of the claim. The court said provide evidence, or it will be dismissed with prejudice. The City had no intention of providing evidence that didn't exist.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but that is about as good as I remember.

[lilylangtree]

Interesting.

[ChevyZ28]

Since when did these judges care about appearances? Look at some of these blatantly unconstitutional decisions they have handed down, and all of the judicial legislating they have done. I believe this was a slip. Something else is a foot here, though I wouldn't even begin to know what to guess what is going on. Don't misunderstand, I am glad for this decision. I am just amazed the judge did not side with the gun grabbers.

[Gritty]

It sounds like the City of Newark got a trigger-lock installed on it's tax-payer funded lawsuit.

Now, these frivolous lawsuits need to be banned.

[tracer]

I would be very disappointed and surprised if Sturm and its co-defendants failed to sue the City of NoWork for legal fees and expenses incurred.....

[rarestia]

I bet SR still paid out a pretty penny to defend this. What a ridiculous country we live in! What's next? Electing socialists to the presidency? Where's everyone moving when JFK/Clinton presidency starts?

[blau993]

Don't get too disappointed or surprised. Suits to recover legal fees and expenses are very tough to win. Every successful defendant wants to file one, and that is understandable. But to actually do so is usually just throwing good money after bad.

In England, the general rule is that the loser of a lawsuit must pay the winner's legal expenses. There is a lot to be said for the "English Rule," as it is known. It would certainly prevent many (though not all) marginal to frivolous cases from going forward. However, there is opposition to the "English Rule" pretty much across the whole US political spectrum, and I don't see it becoming the law in the US any time soon.