TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... y-campaign

Chas.

In this case, rightly so!

Interesting that both of the parents were/are employees of the Brady Campaign.
http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/20 ... hings.html

From this article in April 2016: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... /82721118/

Lucky Gunner responded in an email saying that the Phillips' lawsuit was “orchestrated and funded” by the pro-gun control group Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

“It appears the Brady Center intends to leave the Phillips paying the bill,” the company said, noting it hasn’t received any reimbursement. “When the Brady Center does pay the funds will be donated to more than 75 groups committed to protecting against future assaults,” the company said.

The Brady Campaign has offered to help the family raise the money, but Phillips say they’d rather file for bankruptcy..

“It’s the principle,” he said.

“Would you pay $200,000 to the people that sold armor-piercing bullets over the Internet without asking for his drivers’ license?”

The Phillips were listed as employees of the Brady bunch at one point.

The natural extension to "protection" from someone ringing a cash register is too horrible to consider.

Why is it so hard to see what a life without freedom is like when there are so many examples in the world?

Wonder if their attorneys disclosed the risks of the lawsuit before it was filed, including the risk they could owe the other sides attorney's fees if they lost. If they were so informed yet proceeded anyway then I have no sympathy. However, if they were not informed by their attorneys then that might open another can of worms...My gut tells me there is more to this story.

I'm not a lawyer, but I just don't understand why it takes $200K in legal fees to raise and rule on the defense that was ultimately cited in the dismissal.

Wouldn't a summary judgment have been more appropriate for a case that fell squarely under the protections of the cited law?

Maybe they could turn around and sue the Brady bunch for poor legal advice.

Excaliber wrote:I'm not a lawyer, but I just don't understand why it takes $200K in legal fees to raise and rule on the defense that was ultimately cited in the dismissal.

Wouldn't a summary judgment have been more appropriate for a case that fell squarely under the protections of the cited law?

The best lawyers charge $1000/hour. You're right. Neither the best lawyers nor 200 hours of mental sweat were involved here.

Consider that you are looking at some discovery cost, travel expenses, research, filing fees, ect. A summary judgment motion was denied IIRC.

I think we just saw the first test run of anti-gunners efforts to use the courts to hurt the firearms industry. Here's what I think their plan actually is:
1. Locate family members of victims killed in a well publicized attack.
2. Convince them to sue while the gun control organization is not technically a party to the lawsuit.
3. Provide as much aid as possible to plaintiffs to draw out the case and run up expenses for defendants.
4. Accept the expected loss (Appeal when possible)
5. Have plaintiff declare bankruptcy to keep defendant from collecting associated costs
6. Repeat as often as possible to hurt legal businesses in spite of the Protection of Lawful Commerce law.

G.A. Heath wrote:Consider that you are looking at some discovery cost, travel expenses, research, filing fees, ect. A summary judgment motion was denied IIRC.

I think we just saw the first test run of anti-gunners efforts to use the courts to hurt the firearms industry. Here's what I think their plan actually is:
1. Locate family members of victims killed in a well publicized attack.
2. Convince them to sue while the gun control organization is not technically a party to the lawsuit.
3. Provide as much aid as possible to plaintiffs to draw out the case and run up expenses for defendants.
4. Accept the expected loss (Appeal when possible)
5. Have plaintiff declare bankruptcy to keep defendant from collecting associated costs
6. Repeat as often as possible to hurt legal businesses in spite of the Protection of Lawful Commerce law.

That could be their strategy and it might work until word about how these cases ultimately turn out for the plaintiffs gets around, which I don't think will take very long. Future defendant could help future plaintiffs understand the consequences very early in the process by simply forwarding them news clips like the one in the OP here.

I wonder if the Phillips can sue the Brady Campaign since it appears they were exploited by their employer?

G.A. Heath wrote:Consider that you are looking at some discovery cost, travel expenses, research, filing fees, ect. A summary judgment motion was denied IIRC.

I think we just saw the first test run of anti-gunners efforts to use the courts to hurt the firearms industry. Here's what I think their plan actually is:
1. Locate family members of victims killed in a well publicized attack.
2. Convince them to sue while the gun control organization is not technically a party to the lawsuit.
3. Provide as much aid as possible to plaintiffs to draw out the case and run up expenses for defendants.
4. Accept the expected loss (Appeal when possible)
5. Have plaintiff declare bankruptcy to keep defendant from collecting associated costs
6. Repeat as often as possible to hurt legal businesses in spite of the Protection of Lawful Commerce law.

If that's the case, then the defendants should start building a case for collusion and/or fraud.involving the gun control groups since bankruptcy protection doesn't apply to debt incurred through fraud, false pretenses, or false representation.

G.A. Heath wrote:Consider that you are looking at some discovery cost, travel expenses, research, filing fees, ect. A summary judgment motion was denied IIRC.

I think we just saw the first test run of anti-gunners efforts to use the courts to hurt the firearms industry. Here's what I think their plan actually is:
1. Locate family members of victims killed in a well publicized attack.
2. Convince them to sue while the gun control organization is not technically a party to the lawsuit.
3. Provide as much aid as possible to plaintiffs to draw out the case and run up expenses for defendants.
4. Accept the expected loss (Appeal when possible)
5. Have plaintiff declare bankruptcy to keep defendant from collecting associated costs
6. Repeat as often as possible to hurt legal businesses in spite of the Protection of Lawful Commerce law.

Simple solution - the attorneys representing the plaintiff are responsible for paying the attorney fees of the defendant when case dismissed. This would discourage attorneys from filing frivolous suits they know have zero chance of success.

Excaliber wrote:I'm not a lawyer, but I just don't understand why it takes $200K in legal fees to raise and rule on the defense that was ultimately cited in the dismissal.

Wouldn't a summary judgment have been more appropriate for a case that fell squarely under the protections of the cited law?

I don't know or remember why summary judgement wasn't rendered, but the legal fees far exceeded $200K. That's just what the judge allowed ($206K I think).

Some of the other victims and/or families sued Cinemark and lost. They also were on the hook for Cinemark's legal fees, more than $700K. A number of the losing plaintiffs then settled out of court with Cinemark and Cinemark withdrew their legal fee request from the court.