• The plaintiffs were listed as employees of the Brady Center.

    The blogger at No Lawyers, Only Guns and Money discovered this back in April, and others have covered it as well. Somehow it does not make it into MSM articles, tho. Strange, that.



  • The plaintiffs seem like a bunch of idiots. That notwithstanding, their lawyer seems to be the one responsible for the frivolous lawsuit. FRCP Rule 11 states:

    “(5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions. The court must not impose a monetary sanction:

    (A) against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2)”

    and 11(b)(2) states:

    “(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
    . . .
    (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law…”

    I did not read the sanctions order, but the indications seem that the sanctions should be against the attorney/law firm ans not the clients.

  • Ok, so now I read the memorandum and order here: http://ia601500.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.cod.151625/gov.uscourts.cod.151625.45.0.pdf

    and the Colorado law on which the judge based his award of attorney’s fees here: http://www.leg.state.co.us/2000/inetcbill.nsf/billcontainers/5A430208954A9729872568560079C9CF/$FILE/010_01.pdf

    Colorado law apparently does provide for the award of attorney’s fees for bringing a suit against a firearms or ammunition manufacturer or dealer except a products liability claim.

    It still seems to me that the judge should have awarded sanctions against the attorney who brought the case, and not the plaintiffs personally.

    The plaintiffs still have a remedy against the attorney in a suit for legal malpractice, but that opens up another litigation and its attendant expenses.

    Also, the court should have scrutinized the attorney’s fees of over $200K in this case, especially on a 12(b)(6) motion where no discovery took place and the legal effort should have been minimal to get the dismissal. At $400 per hour times a reasonable amount of time spent of 10 hours to file a motion to dismiss, would have resulted in attorneys’ fees of about $8,000.

    • Read the comment at the top of the thread by Eric.

      The plaintiff couple are both employees of the Brady campaign.

      1. They are every bit as culpable as the lawyer. This lawsuit is a publicity stunt cooked up by the Brady Foundation.

      2. The fee award will likely be paid by the Brady Foundation.

  • Too bad. The Brady Center doesn’t care, they are using donated money to bring about their legalities. Just another casualty in the war against self defense.

  • I’ve seen several comments in various fora — like VMS’s above — that the $200k in legal fees sounds really high. One thing people might not realize is that there were three sets of defendants in this case, each represented by their own counsel.

    Also, anyone who thinks that a motion to dismiss in a case such as this can be drafted in 10 hours is… severely confused. The fee application would take longer than that. Plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss comprised 40 pages of argument on numerous legal issues; as the Court noted in its fee award:

    “The Sportsman’s Guide’s opening brief was not unnecessarily complex or overly long (21 pages). In contrast, the plaintiffs’ response brief was 38 pages in length. The reply briefs submitted by The Sportsman’s Guide and LuckyGunner were necessary to respond to arguments advocated by the plaintiffs in their opposition brief. The Sportsman’s Guide’s briefing strategy is more accurately described as thorough, rather than “overkill.” A thorough opening brief was necessary to ensure that all issues would be preserved for appeal in the event of an adverse ruling.”