Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Diamondback Shooting Sports Incorporated et al
Filing
110
ORDER DENYING Defendants' 99 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 1/24/25. (BAC)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Estados Unidos Mexicanos,
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
12
Diamondback
Shooting
Incorporated, et al.,
13
No. CV-22-00472-TUC-RM
ORDER
Sports
Defendants.
14
15
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Doc. 99), which is fully
16
briefed (Docs. 100, 101). The Court finds the Motion suitable for resolution without oral
17
argument.
18
I.
Background
19
In this action, Plaintiff Estados Unidos Mexicanos sues various Arizona firearm
20
dealers for harms deriving from criminal misuse of firearms in Mexico. (See Doc. 1.)
21
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “systematically participate in trafficking military-style
22
weapons and ammunition to drug cartels in Mexico” through “reckless and unlawful
23
business practices.” (Id. at 4 ¶ 1.) Plaintiff raised similar claims in a lawsuit filed in the
24
District of Massachusetts against firearm manufacturers and a firearm distributor
25
(“Manufacturer Case”). (See Doc. 99-1.) In the Manufacturer Case, the district court
26
dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint, and the First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and
27
remanded. See Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., 91 F.4th 511
28
(1st Cir. 2024). On October 4, 2024, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari
1
on the following issues:
2
5
1. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the
“proximate cause” of alleged injuries to the Mexican government
stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico.
2. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States
amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because
firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are
unlawfully trafficked.
6
(See Doc. 99-2 at 2); Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, No. 23-
7
1141, 2024 WL 4394115 (Oct. 4, 2024). Inherent in these issues is the question of
8
whether the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”) bars the claims
9
asserted in the Manufacturer Case. (See generally Doc. 99-2.) The district court has
10
stayed proceedings in the Manufacturer Case pending issuance of the Supreme Court’s
11
decision. (Doc. 101-1.)
3
4
12
In resolving Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in the above-captioned matter, this
13
Court found that Plaintiff’s Complaint “adequately alleges that Defendants’ knowing
14
violation of firearm-specific statutes proximately caused Plaintiff’s injuries for purposes
15
of the predicate exception to the PLCAA.” (Doc. 50 at 14-15.) In so finding, the Court
16
relied upon the First Circuit’s decision in the Manufacturer Case. (See id.)
17
II.
Legal Standard
18
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court
19
to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for
20
itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In
21
evaluating whether to stay proceedings, a court must weigh “the competing interests
22
which will be affected,” including:
23
24
25
26
the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the
hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go
forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the
simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which
could be expected to result from a stay.
CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962).
27
A court may “find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the
28
parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent
-2-
1
proceedings which bear upon the case,” even if the other proceedings are not “necessarily
2
controlling of the action before the court.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593
3
F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979). However, “[o]nly in rare circumstances will a litigant
4
in one cause be compelled to stand aside while a litigant in another settles the rule of law
5
that will define the rights of both.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. “[I]f there is even a fair
6
possibility that the stay ... will work damage” to another, the party seeking the stay “must
7
make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward[.]” Id.
8
“[B]eing required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute a clear case of
9
hardship or inequity[.]” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1112 (9th Cir. 2005)
10
(internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, “[a] stay should not be granted unless it
11
appears likely the other proceedings will be concluded within a reasonable time in
12
relation to the urgency of the claims presented to the court.” Leyva, 593 F.2d at 864.
13
“Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” Dependable Hwy. Exp., Inc. v.
14
Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007).
15
III.
Discussion
16
In their Motion to Stay, Defendants urge the Court to stay this litigation until the
17
Supreme Court issues a decision in the Manufacturer Case. (Doc. 99.) The Supreme
18
Court is likely to issue a decision in that case by June 2025, when its October 2024 term
19
ends. Although the requested stay is likely of limited duration, granting the stay would
20
nevertheless delay resolution of this action, in which Plaintiff alleges ongoing and future
21
harm of great magnitude and seeks injunctive relief. See Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1112
22
(recognizing a fair possibility of harm from the granting of a stay where the plaintiff
23
sought injunctive relief against ongoing and future harm).
24
Defendants would suffer in being required to go forward is the hardship of incurring
25
litigation costs which may prove unnecessary depending on how the Supreme Court
26
resolves the Manufacturer Case. Such litigation costs do not constitute a clear case of
27
hardship or inequity for purposes of a Landis stay. See Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1112.
28
The only hardship that
Furthermore, although the Supreme Court’s decision in the Manufacturer Case
-3-
1
may affect the scope of this action, it is not clear how or to what degree it will do so. As
2
Plaintiff notes, the connection between the defendants’ conduct and illegal firearm
3
trafficking is more attenuated in the Manufacturer Case than it is here, and the Supreme
4
Court will not address the PLCAA’s negligent entrustment exception, which is at issue
5
here. (Doc. 100 at 6-8.)
6
7
After weighing the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or
denial of a stay, the Court declines to grant a Landis stay.
8
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Doc. 99) is denied.
9
Dated this 24th day of January, 2025.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?