Ileto
Ileto v. Glock Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Paez, J.
Opinion by Judge PAEZ. Dissent by Judge CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL.
OPINION
On August 10, 1999, Buford Furrow (“Furrow”) shot and injured three young children, one teenager, and one adult at the Jewish Community Center (“JCC”) in Granada Hills, California. Furrow fled the JCC with his weapons and, later that day, shot and killed Joseph Ileto (“Ileto”), a United States Postal worker who was delivering mail in Chatsworth, California.
Ileto’s sole surviving dependent parent and three of the children who were shot at the JCC filed a complaint in the Los Ange-les Superior Court against multiple defendants involved in the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of various firearms found in Furrow’s possession. The case was removed to federal district court, where the plaintiffs asserted negligence and public nuisance claims against several gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers. These defendants filed motions to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and all motions were granted. Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their public nuisance and state law negligence claims.
Because the plaintiffs have stated a cognizable claim under California tort law for negligence and public nuisance…
Dissenting Opinion
Hall, J.
dissenting.
“Whatever personal emotions and personal views members of this court may have in this tragic case, those feelings must be put aside in resolving the narrow legal question decided here.” Merrill v. Navegar, Inc., 26 Cal.4th 465, 492 , 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 370 , 28 P.3d 116 (2001) (Kennard, J., concurring).
I understand the majority’s desire to ensure that the appellants have their day in court. But I do not concur in the majority’s opinion because I believe that it runs afoul of some of our most basic duties as federal judges. When exercising our diversity jurisdiction, we are required to apply state law whether we agree with it or not. See Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 , 58 S.Ct. 817 , 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938).
The majority’s almost exclusive rebanee on authority from outside of California speaks volumes about how a California court would rule on this case. To reach its result, the majority must look outside Cab-fomia because when a proper analysis of California’s statutes and cases is conducted, it becomes clear that the district court correctly dismissed appellants’ claims. The majority essentially overlooks California law, relying instead on cases from other…