So Elisa, Why Not Beretta U.S.A.?

When trial lawyer Elisa Barnes filed her Hamilton lawsuit in 1995 (Hamilton, et. al. v. Accu-Tek, et. al.) she claimed that gun manufacturers, including Beretta U.S.A. Corp., were legally responsible for criminal shootings because of the negligent marketing and distribution of their products.

When she filed the complaint in federal court in Brooklyn, NY, she manipulated the paperwork to ensure that the case was assigned to federal court Judge Jack B. Weinstein. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., the third largest handgun manufacturer in the United States, was one of many firearm companies named as a defendant in the case. Ultimately, a unanimous appellate court threw the case out of court.

When Barnes filed the NAACP’s lawsuit in 1999, she again claimed that the lawful and heavily regulated sale and distribution of firearms by gun manufacturers was responsible for criminal shootings and somehow caused injury to the NAACP, a non-profit corporation.

She again manipulated the paperwork to ensure that the case would be assigned to her favorite judge, Jack B. Weinstein. But this time Beretta U.S.A. Corp. was not one of the defendants named in the suit.

Two suits, same lawyer, same judge, identical claims. So Elisa… why not Beretta this time?

Two words: “Judge Shopping.”

The NAACP case is in federal court based on what is called "diversity jurisdiction."

In order for a federal court to have diversity jurisdiction the plaintiff cannot be from the same state as any defendant.

Guess what? The NAACP and Beretta U.S.A. are both Maryland corporations. If Beretta U.S.A. Corp. was named as a defendant, the NAACP case could not be heard in federal court. No federal court, no Judge Weinstein.

So, Elisa Barnes and the NAACP thought it was more important to have the case heard by Judge Weinstein, who they obviously believe is favorably predisposed to their cause, than to have one of the largest and most well known members of the firearms industry in the case.

So Elisa… why not Beretta this time? Has your opinion of Beretta recently changed or were you just judge shopping?

Pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act seeks to protect firearms and ammunition manufacturers from being sued for the criminal misuse of their lawful products by third parties. This legislation seeks to prevent abuses to the American legal system.

Only passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (HR 1036 / S 659) will eliminate these frivolous lawsuits that threaten to destroy one of America's oldest, most important industries and eliminate the jobs of thousands of Americans. With 243 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives and 51 co-sponsors in the Senate, the Act enjoys strong bi-partisan support.

On Thursday, April 3, 2003 the Act was passed out of the House Judiciary Committee and onto the whole House by an overwhelming majority of votes. This was the last legislative hurtle the Act had to clear before it could be voted on by the entire House of Representatives. The House is expected to vote on the Act in the near future. See Testimony of Lawrence G. Keane

According to a recent national poll conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 69% of Americans would be more favorable toward their Senator or Representative if they voted to reform the way class action lawsuits are handled in the United States. A recent poll conducted by the American Tort Reform Association found that 83.4% of Americans believe there are too many lawsuits in America.