Skip to content
    Representing Survivors

    Everytown Law Wins Significant Settlement in Case of Online Ammunition Seller Luckygunner, Which Sold Ammunition to a Minor That Resulted in a Mass Shooting at Santa Fe, TX, High School

    Stone, et al. v. Pagourtzis, et al.

    11.28.2018

      Learn More:

      Everytown Law represented the family of Sabika Aziz Sheikh in Stone v. Pagourtzis, a case that settled with a first-of-its-kind agreement that requires online ammunition seller Luckygunner to maintain an age verification system at the point of sale for all ammunition sales. 

      Sabika Aziz Sheikh was a Pakistani exchange student who was murdered in a mass shooting at Santa Fe High School on May 18, 2018. On November 28, 2018, Everytown Law filed a petition on behalf of Sabika’s family to join Stone v. Pagourtzis, a case brought by other family members and survivors of the mass shooting against the parents of the shooter, who killed 10 and wounded 13 of his classmates and teachers. The case alleged that the shooter’s parents negligently stored their firearms in a manner that allowed their son to murder 10 students and teachers and wounded 13 more. 

      On March 4, 2020, Everytown Law filed an amended petition, adding negligence and conspiracy claims against Luckygunner (an online ammunition sales website), its founders, and two related companies. The petition alleged that Luckygunner and its affiliates negligently and illegally sold and delivered ammunition to the underage shooter. Federal law prohibits selling handgun ammunition to children under the age of 18. The shooter was 17 when he seamlessly purchased handgun ammunition that he used in the shooting from Luckygunner.com.

      Over the next two years, the Luckygunner and related defendants filed multiple motions in various courts in an attempt to delay or dismiss the case. Each time, Everytown Law was successful in opposing these motions. First, they removed the lawsuit from state court to federal court. On December 7, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas sided with the plaintiffs and remanded the case to Texas state court. Next, they moved to dismiss the case from Texas state court arguing that they were entitled to immunity under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). On March 18, 2021, the court denied the motion. On April 13, 2021, they filed a petition of mandamus to the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District to appeal the ruling on the motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District denied their mandamus petition. On June 3, 2021, they filed a petition of mandamus to the Supreme Court of Texas. On February 18, 2022, the Texas Supreme Court denied the mandamus petition.  

      Finally, all of the defendants related to Luckygunner filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in Texas state court. On November 29, 2022, the court granted the motions of the individual defendants and the parent company, MollenhourGross, but denied Red Stag Fulfillment’s motion. 

      On February 9, 2023, the parties announced a settlement in the case. The settlement requires Luckygunner to maintain an age verification system that will refuse a sale to anyone whose age cannot be verified or who is verified to be under 21. The remaining terms of the settlement are confidential.

      Case Documents

      November 28, 2018 – Intervention in Stone v. PagourtzisDownload
      January 4, 2019 – Defendants’ Original AnswerDownload
      June 12, 2019 – Plaintiffs’ First Amended Petition & Request for DisclosureDownload
      November 12, 2019 – Plaintiffs’ Second Amended PetitionDownload
      March 4, 2020 – Plaintiffs’ Third Amended PetitionDownload
      May 1, 2020 – Defendants’ Notice of RemovalDownload
      June 1, 2020 – Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff-Intervenors’ Motion to RemandDownload
      December 7, 2020 – Order Granting Motions to RemandDownload
      December 23, 2020 – MG Defendants’ Special AppearanceDownload
      December 23, 2020 – Defendant Red Stag Fulfillment LLC’s Special AppearanceDownload
      January 6, 2021 – Defendants’ Rule 91A Motion to DismissDownload
      February 8, 2021 – Motion for Protective OrderDownload
      February 10, 2021 – Plaintiffs’ Opposition to 91A Motion to DismissDownload
      March 3, 2021 – Amended Order Consolidating CasesDownload
      March 8, 2021 – Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to DismissDownload
      March 19, 2021 – Order Denying Motion to DismissDownload
      March 26, 2021 – Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending ResolutionDownload
      April 9, 2021 – Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Stay and Protective Order.pdf
      Download
      April 13, 2021 – Defendants’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus [Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District]Download
      April 13, 2021 – Emergency Motion for Stay of ProceedingsDownload
      April 22, 2021 – Plaintiffs’ Response to Relators’ Emergency Motion to StayDownload
      April 23, 2021 – Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to StayDownload
      May 12, 2021 – Order Denying Mandamus PetitionDownload
      May 12, 2021 – Opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth DistrictDownload
      June 3, 2021 – Defendants’ Redacted Petition for Mandamus [Texas Supreme Court]Download
      June 3, 2021 – Defendants’ Motion for Temporary Relief and Stay of ProceedingsDownload
      June 11, 2021 – Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to StayDownload
      June 16, 2021 – Relators’ Reply In Support of Motion for Temporary StayDownload
      August 9, 2021 – Plaintiffs’ Response to the Petition for Writ of MandamusDownload
      August 24, 2021 – Relators’ Reply in Support of Petition for ReviewDownload
      November 24, 2021 – Relators’ Brief on the MeritsDownload
      December 21, 2021 – Merits Brief of the Real Parties in InterestDownload
      February 18, 2022 – Denial of Petition for Mandamus ReviewDownload
      April 1, 2022 – Plaintiffs’ Amended Application for Attorney’s FeesDownload
      April 25, 2022 – Fourth Amended PetitionDownload
      May 13, 2022 – Defendants’ Objections to Attorneys’ FeesDownload
      May 16, 2022 – Order on Jurisdictional DiscoveryDownload
      June 2, 2022 – Order on Attorneys’ FeesDownload
      August 18, 2022 – Final Opposition to Special Appearances – RedactedDownload
      September 16, 2022 – Final Reply in Support of Special Appearances – RedactedDownload
      November 29, 2022 – Order Granting and Denying Special AppearancesDownload
      February 9, 2023 – Final JudgementDownload

      Press

      Press Release

      Press Release

      In the News

      The Latest

      The information contained in the Everytown Law webpage is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. No recipient of content from this site, client or otherwise, should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the site without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the recipient’s state. The content of this website contains general information and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. The transmission of information through this site does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship between Everytown Law and any recipient or sender.

      Did you know?

      30 percent of guns recovered by ATF in California have no serial number on them, making it impossible for law enforcement to trace.

      Stephens A. “Ghost Guns Are Everywhere in California”. The Trace. (2019). https://bit.ly/2DKkIlt