Remand to State Court

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Keely Roberts v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc.

Case No.: 23-2992

Officials: Easterbrook, Hamilton, and Kolar, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Remand to State Court

Following the Highland Park, IL shooting perpetrated by Robert Eugene Crimo III, who used a Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle to take the lives of seven individuals and injure 48 others, the victims and their estates collectively filed several lawsuits against Crimo, his father, the gun shops where he obtained the rifle, and the manufacturer of the weapon, Smith & Wesson. The plaintiffs argued that Smith & Wesson acted irresponsibly by making the M&P15 available to civilians, as it is a firearm intended for police and military use. They further contended that the manufacturer should be held liable because its marketing tactics attracted individuals prone to misuse firearms.

In response, the defendants, including Smith & Wesson, sought to transfer the cases to federal court by filing notices of removal, claiming that the victims’ claims fell under federal jurisdiction. However, neither of the Crimos, who were the primary alleged wrongdoers, submitted their own notices of removal nor consented to Smith & Wesson’s. Consequently, the plaintiffs moved for the cases to be remanded to state court, arguing that all defendants must agree to removal under federal law. Smith & Wesson countered this by asserting that removal was permissible under a statute that allows removal regardless of the other defendants’ preferences.

The Northern District of Illinois was unconvinced by Smith & Wesson’s arguments and decided to remand the cases to state court. Smith & Wesson appealed this decision to the Seventh Circuit.

The Seventh Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling to remand the cases to state court, dismissing Smith & Wesson’s claim that the state lawsuits constituted multiple “claims” against them. The court clarified that Smith & Wesson’s interpretation, where each legal theory is considered a separate “claim,” was incorrect. Instead, the court emphasized that the central claim in these lawsuits is that Crimo caused harm by killing and injuring multiple individuals, with Smith & Wesson potentially bearing secondary liability for facilitating these actions. Additionally, the court suggested that the district judge should assess whether Smith & Wesson should cover the plaintiffs’ costs and fees incurred due to the unwarranted removal and subsequent appeal.

Affirmed.

Decided 04/08/24

Full Text