Judge spares Gary gunmaker lawsuit, rejects new law’s retroactivity
GARY, Ind. (INDIANA CAPITAL CHRONICLE) — A Lake County judge on Monday declined to dismiss a long-pending lawsuit waged by the city of Gary against a range of gun manufacturers and dealers.
A March law — the Legislature’s third attempt to kill the case — lets only the Indiana attorney general sue the firearm industry. It’s retroactive to August 27, 1999 — three days before Gary filed its lawsuit.
Superior Court Civil Division Judge John M. Sedia repudiated the law’s retroactive nature, writing that the General Assembly “cannot end this lawsuit.”
“To do so would violate years of vested rights and constitutional guarantees set forth so eloquently in Gary’s Memorandum of Law,” Sedia continued. “To avoid manifest injustice, the substance of this lawsuit must be taken to its conclusion.”
The judge additionally opined that, in accordance with state trial rules, lawsuits must be prosecuted on behalf of the “real party in interest” — the party with legal standing to bring a lawsuit.
He argued the law didn’t replace the real party in interest, writing, “One cannot conflate the City of Gary with the state of Indiana.”
Sedia was appointed to the bench by former Gov. Mitch Daniels in 2012.
The 13-page order also deals Gary several blows.
The city alleged the new law is unconstitutional special legislation because the effective date singles out its lawsuit and because it constitutes legislative intrusion in the judicial system.
Sedia wrote that lawmakers have repeatedly stripped local authority over specific functions, typically related to finance, “without offending the Indiana Constitution.”
And the law, he wrote, isn’t special legislation because it applies statewide, and it doesn’t violate the separation of powers.
“Though arguably flawed and bad policy,” Sedia concluded, the law “is constitutional.”
The defendants — the gun manufacturers and dealers — can appeal the ruling to the Indiana Court of Appeals or eventually the Indiana Supreme Court.
The Indiana Capital Chronicle has requested comment from several parties involved in the lawsuit.