Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...at Appellees were “legally responsible for their complicity in the entirely foreseeable, deadly use of the assault-style weapons they place on the market.” However, the complaint recognized a potential obstacle—the first two subsections of section 790.331, Florida Statutes (2018), and the “automatic sanction” created by subsection (6)(b) of that statute. Section 790.331 is titled “Prohibition of civil actions against firearms or ammunition manufacturers, firearms trade associations, firearms or ammunition distributors, or firearms or ammunition dealers.” The pertinent provisions of section 790.331 are as follows: (1) The Legislature finds and declares that the manufacture, distribution, or sale of firearms and ammunition by manufacturers, distributors, or dealers duly licensed by the appropriate federal...

...he court finds that the defendant is immune as provided in this section, the court shall award the defendant all attorney’s fees, costs and compensation for loss of income, and expenses incurred as a result of such action. § 790.331 (1), (2), (3), (6)(b), Fla. Stat. (2018). Appellants contend that section 790.331 prohibits (and potentially punishes) only suits by state actors against firearms manufacturers, not those brought by private citizens. Nevertheless, Appellants were hesitant to test that theory by filing their tort claims against Appellees, as a lawsuit might subject them to the sanctions provided in section 790.331(6)(b) if the trial court found Appellees were immune from suit. As a result, Appellants filed the instant complaint for declaratory relief, requesting that the trial court declare section 790.331 “is inapplicable and does not prohibit an individual person from bringing any cause of action for damages, abatement, or injunctive relief against a firearms manufacturer, distributor, or dealer arising out of their design, marketing, distribution, or sale of firearms to the public.” (emphasis added). Alternatively, Appellants requested that the trial court declare subsections 790.331(2), (3), and (6) unconstitutional under the Florida Constitution because they violate Appellants’ constitutional right of access to courts. Appellees moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Appellants did not show a present adversi...

...ey were immune from suit, focusing solely on the jurisdiction argument. Ultimately, the trial court dismissed Appellants’ complaint for declaratory relief on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction, and never reached the issue of whether section 790.331 barred claims from private citizens nor whether certain provisions of section 790.331 were unconstitutional....

...As such, no bona-fide, actual, present, and practical need exist[ed] for the declaration sought by [the complainants].” Fla. Carry, Inc., 212 So. 3d at 466. Here, Appellants have refrained from filing any tort claims against Appellees which could potentially violate section 790.331 and lead to the imposition of “penalties,” opting instead to file the instant complaint for declaratory relief to determine whether their potential tort claims, if filed, would constitute a violation of the statute and subject them to liability....

...uch statute . . . . In these circumstances there is no justiciable controversy.” (quoting 1 WALTER A. ANDERSON, ACTIONS FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS (2d ed. 1951)). As in Boyd and Ervin, in the absence of controversy as to an actual violation of section 790.331, the instant case does not, in its present posture, present a “justiciable controversy” appropriate for declaratory relief. In reaching this conclusion, we recognize Appellants’ argument that situations exist in which, even...

...An action for declaratory judgment will not be permitted to give rise to a mere advisory opinion.”). In the instant case, we cannot say that future harm or litigation is unavoidable because Appellants could decline to file their potential tort claims against Appellees or the latter may decline to rely upon section 790.331 in answering the complaint....

...sought.” Apthorp v. Detzner, 162 So. 3d 236, 241 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). To reiterate, Appellants’ claim of unavoidable harm or litigation is speculative as many contingencies and unknowns must occur before a trial court may determine the applicability of section 790.331 to a complaint filed by Appellants against Appellees....

...but rather attempts to gain a litigation advantage by obtaining an advance ruling on an affirmative defense.”). Conclusion As set forth above, Appellants have failed to demonstrate the existence of a bona fide need for a declaratory judgment as to the construction and validity of section 790.331....