Mexican claims against gun manufacturers suffer personal jurisdiction setback

Image by Andy Giraud from Pixabay

In 2021, Mexico sued seven U.S. gun manufacturers in the federal district court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that they design, market, and sell weapons in ways they know will arm Mexican drug cartels. As described in an earlier post , the First Circuit ruled that some of Mexico’s claims were not barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The defendants have asked the Supreme Court to review that decision.

Meanwhile, six of the defendants renewed their motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On August 7, 2024, the district court (Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor) granted those motions, holding that the court did not have general or specific jurisdiction over these defendants. This is a setback for Mexico, but not a defeat. First, the district court did not dismiss Mexico’s claims against Smith & Wesson, which was headquartered in Massachusetts when the complaint was filed. Second, Mexico’s claims against the other six defendants can be refiled in states where general jurisdiction exists.

Mexico’s claims

Mexico has strict gun laws and issues fewer than 50 gun permits per year. Yet it has the third most gun-related deaths in the world. It is estimated that more than half a million guns flow from the United States to Mexico each year. In recent years, nearly half of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico were made by the suspects’ manufacturers.

Mexico sued the seven U.S. manufacturers based on various tort and state statutory claims, which the district court dismissed as preempted by PLCAA. PLCAA is a federal law that prohibits claims against gun manufacturers in state and federal courts for damages arising from the criminal or unlawful use of firearms. But PLCAA has several exceptions, and on appeal, the First Circuit held that some of Mexico’s claims fell within PLCAA’s so-called “predicate exception” for actions in which the defendant knowingly violated a state or federal law governing the sale or marketing of guns. The appeals court concluded that Mexico had adequately alleged that the defendants violated federal laws prohibiting the sale of guns without a license, the export of guns without a license, and sales to straw buyers, and therefore could bring their tort claims within this exception.

The defendants filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. But in the meantime, six of the seven defendants argued that the district court should dismiss the claims against them for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Personal jurisdiction

To hear claims, a court must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k), unless the claims are based on federal law, a federal court generally may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant only if a state court in the forum state could. This means meeting the constitutional requirements imposed on state courts by the U.S. Supreme Court under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as any additional requirements under state long-arm statutes.

There are two basic types of personal jurisdiction. Under “general jurisdiction,” a court can hear all claims against the defendant, even claims that have no connection with the forum. But a court can generally exercise general jurisdiction only if the defendant is “at home” in the forum, which for a corporation means where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business. Under “specific jurisdiction,” a court can hear claims against a defendant who is not at home in the forum, but only if those claims “arise out of or relate to” the defendant’s dealings with the forum.

Of the seven U.S. gun manufacturers that Mexico sued, only Smith & Wesson is subject to general jurisdiction in Massachusetts because it was headquartered there. (The company subsequently moved its headquarters to Tennessee.) None of the other six are incorporated or have their principal place of business in Massachusetts. That left specific jurisdiction as the only option.

Because Massachusetts’ long-arm law imposes requirements that go beyond those of the Fourteenth Amendment, the district court began with that law. As relevant here, Massachusetts law authorizes personal jurisdiction over “an action at law or in equity arising out of (defendant’s) . . . doing business in this Commonwealth.” It was not disputed that the six non-Massachusetts defendants were doing business in Massachusetts because they sold guns there. The question was whether Mexico’s claims arose out of that business.

Massachusetts’ “arising from” requirement has been interpreted to mean that the items traded must be the “but for” cause of the alleged injury. The district court held that Mexico failed to demonstrate a prima facie case that this requirement was met because it had failed to show “that the weapons sold in Massachusetts were the same weapons that ultimately caused plaintiff’s injuries.”

For the sake of completeness, the district court also considered whether the constitutional requirements for specific jurisdiction were met. The Fourteenth Amendment’s limitations on specific jurisdiction are not as demanding as those of the Massachusetts long-arm statutes because they grant specific jurisdiction over claims that “arise out of or relate to“the defendant’s contact with the forum (emphasis added). In Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (2021), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the “relating to” aspect of this formulation did not require causal proof.

In fordthe plaintiffs were residents of the forum states and were injured there, but the products that caused their injuries were neither made nor originally sold in those states. The district court found that Mexico’s case was distinguishable from fordbecause Mexico is not a resident of Massachusetts and was not injured there.

The court ruled that this case was closer to the case Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. California Supreme Court(2017), which found no specific jurisdiction in California in a lawsuit brought by nonresident plaintiffs who were not injured in California and had failed to show that specific products that caused their injuries came from California. The defendant in BMS had sold a large quantity of the allegedly defective product in California, just as the six defendants had sold guns in Massachusetts. “At best,” the court concluded, Mexico “has argued that the type of products sold by the six moving defendants in Massachusetts are the same type of products that caused the injuries in Mexico. That is not a sufficient basis to claim personal jurisdiction.”

The district court then held, in the alternative, that the exercise of specific jurisdiction in this case would be unreasonable on the grounds that Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Higher Court (1987). “There are no specific Massachusetts statutory claims asserted against any of the six moving defendants; plaintiff is not a citizen of Massachusetts; none of the defendants is a citizen of Massachusetts; no injury occurred in Massachusetts; and it is alleged that no Massachusetts citizen suffered any injury.” One might question the claim that none of the defendants is a citizen of Massachusetts, because Smith & Wesson was. AsahiThe factor that addresses the most effective resolution of the controversy therefore weighs in favor of jurisdiction, since it makes more sense to have similar claims heard in one court than in seven. But reasonableness alone would of course not be sufficient to overcome the six defendants’ lack of minimal contact with Massachusetts.

What’s next?

Ultimately, the district court’s decision will likely split Mexico’s claims into multiple lawsuits. Each of the six non-Massachusetts defendants is located in a different U.S. state and has its principal place of business there or in yet another U.S. state. Thus, each of these defendants is subject to general jurisdiction elsewhere in the United States.

Barrett Firearms Manufacturing can be sued in Tennessee, where it is incorporated and has its principal place of business. Beretta USA can be sued in Maryland, where it is incorporated and has its principal place of business. Century Arms International can be sued in Vermont, where it is incorporated, or in Florida, where it has its principal place of business. Glock can be sued in Georgia, where it is incorporated and has its principal place of business. Sturm, Ruger & Co. can be sued in Delaware, where it is incorporated, or in Connecticut, where it has its principal place of business. And Colt can be sued in Kansas, where it is incorporated, or in Connecticut, where it has its principal place of business.

None of these states are part of the First Circuit, so that court’s ruling that PLCAA does not block Mexico’s claims will not set a precedent in these other cases. But an Arizona district court has already found the First Circuit’s decision persuasive in a lawsuit against gun distributors. Other courts may do the same. Of course, the Supreme Court could take up the case in the meantime, but there is currently no circuit split that would warrant such review. So for now, Mexico’s claims will continue in U.S. courts, albeit spread across multiple courts.