The procedural law of the forum is always followed. A choice-of-law determination, such as whether Mexican or Massachusetts law applies, determines the substantive law only. The question of whether PLCAA immunity is substantive or procedural must be answered before the court engages in choice-of-law analysis. The Ninth Circuit, for example, determined that the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, a statute of repose, is a “ statutory right not to stand trial,” while the Third Circuit ruled the same statute to be a “ defense to liability, not immunity from suit.” However, courts do not always agree on how to categorize a statute. As the Second Circuit noted, the Supreme Court has instructed that statutes should only be treated as granting procedural immunities if that legislative intent is clear from the text. In its answer, Mexico argues, unsurprisingly, that that “PLCAA does not create immunity.” The Second Circuit ( twice) and Ninth Circuit have previously held that PLCAA is substantive law. For example, qualified immunity and, potentially, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act are both. Not all immunities fit into this dichotomy. In suits implicating defenses from liability, courts have the power to hear the case, but a defendant may then raise such immunities as substantive defenses. Immunities from suit are procedural, requiring the court to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. courts recognize two types of liability-limiting statutes: immunities from suit and defenses from liability.
This case presents the District Court of Massachusetts with a question of first impression in the First Circuit: what type of immunity does PLCAA provide? U.S. Amidst this attention, one piece of the puzzle just beginning to be argued in the filings is the potentially dispositive role that choice-of-law rules will play in answering that question. The filings discuss a threshold issue that the court must soon resolve, which has been the subject of significant previous coverage on Just Security: whether the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”), which immunizes gun companies from certain suits, bars Mexico’s lawsuit. States and Washington D.C., and 27 district attorneys. Reflecting the breadth of interest in the case, amici include two sets of international law scholars, Mexican human rights advocates, two Caribbean nations, 13 U.S. The case has attracted considerable attention in the United States and internationally, and Monday’s filing was accompanied by several amicus briefs supporting Mexico’s position. gun manufacturers and retailers, Mexico v. On Monday, Mexico filed its answer to the motion to dismiss in a suit against U.S.
0 kommentar(er)
