Skip to content
    Representing Survivors

    Highland Park July 4th Shooting Survivors Sue Smith & Wesson, Gun Retailers, Shooter and His Father

    Roberts v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al.

    9.28.2022

      Learn More:

      Dozens of mourners gather for a vigil near Central Avenue and St. Johns Avenue in downtown Highland Park, one day after a gunman killed at least seven people and wounded dozens more by firing an AR-15-style rifle from a rooftop onto a crowd attending Highland Park's Fourth of July parade, Tuesday, July 5, 2022 in Highland Park, Ill.. (Anthony Vazquez/Chicago Sun-Times via AP)

      Everytown Law partnered with the Romanucci and Paul Weiss law firms to file lawsuits seeking gun industry accountability and reform on behalf of numerous families whose lives were shattered by the Fourth of July mass shooting in Highland Park. 

      The lawsuits allege that Smith & Wesson’s marketing of the murder weapon was unfair and deceptive because it misleadingly implies a non-existent association between its “M&P” (Military and Police) line of assault rifles and the U.S. military. The lawsuits further allege that two gun stores–online distributor Bud’s Gun Shop and retailer Red Dot Arms–negligently and illegally sold the murder weapon to the shooter in violation of the assault weapons bans in Highwood and Highland Park, IL.

      Case Documents

      September 27, 2022 – ComplaintDownload
      December 7, 2022 – Plaintiffs’ Motion to RemandDownload
      January 20, 2023 – Defendant Smith & Wesson’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to RemandDownload
      January 20, 2023 – Index of Exhibits, Defendant Smith & Wesson’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to RemandDownload
      January 20, 2023 – Exhibit 1, Defendant Smith & Wesson’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand Download
      January 20, 2023 – Exhibit 2, Defendant Smith & Wesson’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to RemandDownload
      January 20, 2023 – Exhibit 3, Defendant Smith & Wesson’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand Download
      January 20, 2023 – Exhibit 4, Defendant Smith & Wesson’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand Download
      January 20, 2023 – Exhibit 5, Defendant Smith & Wesson’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to RemandDownload
      January 20, 2023 – Exhibit 6, Defendant Smith & Wesson’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand Download
      February 3, 2023 – Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Further Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to RemandDownload
      February 27, 2023 – Defendant Smith & Wesson’s Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motions to RemandDownload
      May 17, 2023 – Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motions to RemandDownload
      May 17, 2023 – Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motions to RemandDownload
      May 17, 2023 – Exhibit 2, Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motions to RemandDownload
      May 26, 2023 – Defendant Smith & Wesson’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental AuthorityDownload
      September 25, 2023 – Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to RemandDownload
      October 17, 2023 — Defendant Smith & Wesson’s Notice of Appeal (Seventh Circuit)Download
      December 7, 2023 — Brief of Appellant Smith & Wesson (Seventh Circuit)Download
      January 23, 2024 — Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees (Seventh Circuit)Download
      February 23, 2024 — Reply Brief of Appellant Smith & Wesson (Seventh Circuit)Download
      April 8, 2024 — Opinion Affirming Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Seventh Circuit)Download
      May 10, 2024 — Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Incurred as a Result of RemovalDownload
      May 17, 2024 — Smith & Wesson’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Fees and Costs Incurred as a Result of RemovalDownload
      May 28, 2024 — Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File ReplyDownload
      May 31, 2024 — Smith & Wesson’s Motion to File Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and CostsDownload
      July 2, 2024 — Plaintiffs’ Lead First Amended ComplaintDownload
      September 16, 2024 — Defendant BudsGunShop.com’s Motion to DismissDownload
      September 16, 2024 — Defendant Smith & Wesson’s Motion to DismissDownload
      September 16, 2024 — Defendant Red Dot Arms, Inc’s Motion to DismissDownload
      November 15, 2024 — Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Opposition to Motions to DismissDownload

      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