Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 1 of 143

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

FERNANDO ARMENDARIZ AND MIRIAM

TREBINO, H/W
100 West Tree Farm Drive
Lytle, Texas 78052

And

MATTHEW BREEDON AND LINDSEY

BROOKE MIXON, H/W
6809 Sandnettles Dr.
Savannah, Georgia 31410

And

ZACHARY BROWN
314 Sharon Turnpike
Goshen, Connecticut 06756 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

And

CATHERINE CHARGUALAF AND JUAN

SAN NICOLAS CHARGUALAF, W/H
7816 Haydenberry Cove
Bellevue, Tennessee 37221

And

WILLIAM CLEGG AND JADA BRAY, H/W

9065 South Iron Stob Road
Atoka, Oklahoma 74525

And

DIONICIO DELGADO AND DIANA

DELGADO, H/W
23235 Richmond Turnpike
Ruther Glen, Virginia 22546

And
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 2 of 143

MARY DOFFENY AND JOSEPH

DOFFENY, W/H
199 Dunleith Drive
Destrehan, Louisiana 70047

And

DAVID DUFF
13345 Antonio Way
Dade City, Florida 33525

And

JUAN DURAN
401 Rayburn Street
Leviland, Texas 79336

And

KYLA ELLIS AND CLAYTON ELLIS, W/H

281 South Orleans Road
Orleans, Massachusetts 02653

And

JAMES GARTH JR.

107 Oak Grove Lane, Apt 2005
Eatonton, Georgia 31024

And

JOSEPH HALASE AND LYNN MARIE

HALASE, H/W
7905 White Tail Drive
Mt. Pleasant, Wisconsin 53406

And

AMY HENDEL
18612 Irvine Trail
Lakeville, Minnesota 55044

And

2
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 3 of 143

NATHAN HENYAN AND AMBER

HENYAN, H/W
105 North 89th Avenue
Yakima, Washington 98908

And

DWIGHT JACKSON AND MICHAELA-

KELLY JACKSON, H/W
6028 Golfview Crossing
Locust Grove, Georgia 30248

And

ADAM MARITATO AND LAURA LYNN

MARITATO H/W
W210N16530 Woodshire Court
Jackson, Wisconsin 53037

And

MICHAEL PARKER
3290 72nd Street
Saint Petersburg, Florida 33702

And

ROBERT PARKS AND MICHELLE

PARKS, H/W
126 South Tower Drive
Port Washington, Wisconsin 53074

And

JAMES SCOPPA AND LEAH MICHELLE

SCOPPA H/W
37 Gallant Fox Lane
Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey 08234

And

JERRY WYCHE
621 Totty Way
Lake Alfred, Florida 33850

Plaintiffs,

3
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 4 of 143

v.

SIG SAUER, INC.

72 Pease Boulevard
Newington, New Hampshire 03801

Defendant.

COMPLAINT – CIVIL ACTION

PARTIES

1. The Plaintiffs in this action are a group of highly trained and experienced firearms

users whose lives were upended by a dangerously defective pistol: the Sig Sauer P320.

2. Upon the information discovered through research and document production, the

Sig Sauer P320 is the most dangerous pistol for its users sold in the United States market.

3. The Plaintiffs in this action are federal law enforcement agents, police officers,

combat veterans, detectives, firearms instructors, and civilians who have dedicated significant

portions of their lives to the safe use of weapons.

4. The Plaintiffs in this action trusted Sig Sauer to live up to its reputation as a designer

and manufacturer of safe and reliable handguns.

5. The Plaintiffs in this action trusted Sig Sauer to live up to its promise that the P320

“would not fire unless you want it to.”

6. The Plaintiffs in this action were lied to and let down by Sig Sauer, falling victim

to the dangerously designed and manufactured P320.

7. Plaintiff, Fernando Armendariz (“Plaintiff” or “Armendariz”) is an adult

individual, citizen, and resident of the State of Texas, residing at the above-captioned address.

4
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 5 of 143

8. Plaintiff, Miriam Trebino (“Plaintiff” or “Trebino”) is the wife of Armendariz, is a

citizen, and resident of the State of Texas, residing at the above-captioned address, and makes

claims of loss of consortium as described herein.

9. Plaintiff, Matthew Breedon (“Plaintiff” or “Breedon”), is an adult individual,

citizen, and resident of the State of Georgia, residing at the above-captioned address.

10. Plaintiff, Lindsey Brooke Mixon (“Plaintiff” or “Mixon”) is the wife of Breedon,

is an adult individual, citizen, and resident of the State of Georgia, residing at the above-captioned

address, and makes claims of loss of consortium as described herein.

11. Plaintiff, Zachary Brown (“Plaintiff” or “Brown”), is an adult individual, citizen,

and resident of the State of Connecticut, residing at the above-captioned address.

12. Plaintiff, Catherine Chargualaf (“Plaintiff” or “Chargualaf”), is an adult individual,

citizen, and resident of the State of Tennessee, residing at the above-captioned address.

13. Plaintiff, Juan San Nicholas Chargualaf (“Plaintiff” or “Juan Chargualaf”) is the

husband of Chargualaf, is an adult individual, citizen, and resident of the State of Tennessee,

residing at the above-captioned address, and makes claims of loss of consortium as described

herein.

14. Plaintiff, William Clegg (“Plaintiff” or “Clegg”) is an adult individual, citizen, and

resident of the State of Oklahoma, residing at the above-captioned address.

15. Plaintiff, Jada Bray (“Plaintiff” or “Bray”) is the wife of Clegg, an adult individual,

citizen, and resident of the State of Oklahoma, residing at the above-captioned address, and makes

claims of loss of consortium as described herein.

16. Plaintiff, Dionicio Delgado (“Plaintiff” or “Delgado”), is an adult individual,

citizen, and resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, residing at the above-captioned address.

5
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 6 of 143

17. Plaintiff, Diana Delgado (“Plaintiff” or “Diana Delgado”) is the wife of Delgado,

is an adult individual, citizen, and resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, residing at the above-

captioned address, and makes claims of loss of consortium as described herein.

18. Plaintiff, Mary Doffeny (“Plaintiff” or “Doffeny”), is an adult individual, citizen,

and resident of the State of Louisiana, residing at the above-captioned address.

19. Plaintiff, Joseph Doffeny (“Plaintiff” or “Joseph Doffeny”), is the husband of

Doffeny, an adult individual, citizen, and resident of the State of Louisiana, residing at the above-

captioned address, and makes claims of loss of consortium as described herein.

20. Plaintiff, David Duff (“Plaintiff” or “Duff”), is an adult individual, citizen, and

resident of the State of Florida, residing at the above-captioned address.

21. Plaintiff, Juan Duran (“Plaintiff” or “Duran”), is an adult individual, citizen, and

resident of the State of Texas, residing at the above-captioned address.

22. Plaintiff, Kyla Ellis (“Plaintiff” or “Ellis”), is an adult individual, citizen, and

resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, residing at the above-captioned address.

23. Plaintiff, Clayton Ellis (“Plaintiff” or “Clayton Ellis”), is the husband of Ellis, is an

adult individual, citizen, and resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, residing at the

above-captioned address, and makes claims of loss of consortium as described herein.

24. Plaintiff, James Garth Jr. (“Plaintiff” or “Garth”), is an adult individual, citizen, and

resident of the State of Georgia, residing at the above-captioned address.

25. Plaintiff, Joseph Halase (“Plaintiff” or “Halase”), is an adult individual, citizen, and

resident of the State of Wisconsin, residing at the above-captioned address.

6
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 7 of 143

26. Plaintiff, Lynn Marie Halase (“Plaintiff” or “Lynn Marie Halase”), is an adult

individual, citizen, and resident of the State of Wisconsin, residing at the above-captioned address

and makes claims of loss of consortium as described herein.

27. Plaintiff, Amy Hendel (“Plaintiff” or “Hendel”), is an adult individual, citizen, and

resident of the State of Minnesota, residing at the above-captioned address.

28. Plaintiff, Nathan Henyan (“Plaintiff” or “Henyan”), is an adult individual, citizen,

and resident of the State of Washington, residing at the above-captioned address.

29. Plaintiff, Amber Henyan (“Plaintiff” or “Amber Henyan”), is the wife of Henyan,

an adult individual, citizen, and resident of the State of Washington, residing at the above-

captioned address, and makes claims of loss of consortium as described herein.

30. Plaintiff, Dwight Jackson (“Plaintiff” or “Jackson”), is an adult individual, citizen,

and resident of the State of Georgia, residing at the above-captioned address.

31. Plaintiff, Michaela-Kelly Jackson (“Plaintiff” or “Michaela Jackson”), is the wife

of Jackson, an adult individual, citizen, and resident of the State of Georgia, residing at the above-

captioned address, and makes claims of loss of consortium as described herein.

32. Plaintiff, Adam Maritato (“Plaintiff” or “Maritato”), is an adult individual, citizen,

and resident of the State of Wisconsin, residing at the above-captioned address.

33. Plaintiff, Laura Lynn Maritato (“Plaintiff” or “Laura Maritato”), is the wife of

Maritato, an adult individual, citizen, and resident of the State of Wisconsin, residing at the above-

captioned address, and makes claims of loss of consortium as described herein.

34. Plaintiff, Michael Parker (“Plaintiff” or “Parker”), is an adult individual, citizen,

and resident of the State of Florida, residing at the above-captioned address.

7
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 8 of 143

35. Plaintiff, Robert Parks (“Plaintiff” or “Parks”), is an adult individual, citizen, and

resident of the State of Wisconsin, residing at the above-captioned address.

36. Plaintiff, Michelle Parks (“Plaintiff” or “Michelle Parks”), is the wife of Parks, is

an adult individual, citizen, and resident of the State of Wisconsin, residing at the above-captioned

address, and makes claims of loss of consortium as described herein.

37. Plaintiff, James Scoppa (“Plaintiff” or “Scoppa”), is an adult individual, citizen,

and resident of the State of New Jersey, residing at the above captioned address.

38. Plaintiff, Leah Michelle Scoppa (“Plaintiff” or “Leah Scoppa”), is the wife of

Scoppa, is an adult individual, citizen, and resident of the State of New Jersey, residing at the

above captioned address, and makes claims of loss of consortium as described herein.

39. Plaintiff, Jerry Wyche (“Plaintiff” or “Wyche”), is an adult individual, citizen, and

resident of the State of Florida, residing at the above captioned address.

40. Defendant, Sig Sauer, Inc. (“Sig Sauer” or “Sig Sauer”) is a corporation or other

business entity with its principal place of business at 72 Pease Boulevard in Newington, New

Hampshire 03801, organized and incorporated under the laws of Delaware.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

41. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. There is

perfect diversity of citizenship between the parties. The defendant is a resident of the state of New

Hampshire. Each plaintiff resides in a state other than New Hampshire. The court may exercise

personal jurisdiction over the defendant because it is a resident to New Hampshire.

42. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the acts and omissions giving rise to

this action occurred in New Hampshire.

8
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 9 of 143

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

43. Sig Sauer designs and manufactures firearms for sale to military and commercial

markets throughout the United States and internationally. It markets and sells its products directly

and through dealers.

44. Sig Sauer was formerly known as SIG SAUERARMS Inc. and changed its name

to Sig Sauer, Inc. in October 2007. Its Chief Executive Officer at all times relevant to this

Complaint was Ron J. Cohen.

45. The Sig Sauer P320 is susceptible to unintended discharges, meaning instances

when a gun fires without user intent, at an alarmingly high rate.

46. There have been over 100 incidents (and likely multiples more) of the Sig Sauer

unintentionally discharging when the user believed they did not pull the trigger, many of which

have caused severe injury to the users and/or bystanders.

47. The vast majority of these users are law enforcement officers, former military

personnel, and/or trained and certified gun owners.

48. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer was acting by and through its employees, servants,

and agents, acting within the course and scope of their employment, service and agency.

49. This action seeks actual, compensatory, and enhanced compensatory damages, and

equitable relief, relating to Defendant, Sig Sauer Inc.’s (hereinafter “Defendant” or “Sig Sauer”),

negligence, defective design, and unfair and deceptive marketing practices regarding a firearm.

50. Specifically, this matter involves a striker-fired pistol known as the “P320” that has

fired without the trigger being pulled or deliberately actuated by the user, on numerous civilians

and law enforcement agents across the nation.

9
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 10 of 143

51. Prior to the incidents detailed below in this Complaint, Sig Sauer received multiple

complaints and notifications of P320 pistols firing when the trigger was either not pulled, or not

deliberately actuated by the user.

52. In its “Safety Without Compromise” marketing materials for the P320, Sig Sauer

promises:

53. Despite this express representation, which Sig Sauer has made for the last several

years to the present, the weapon lacks industry-standard safety features and has fired without the

user deliberately pulling the trigger many, many times.

54. Defendant, Sig Sauer, had knowledge long before the sales of the P320s used by

Plaintiffs that the P320 - its first ever striker-fired pistol - was capable of firing unintentionally due

to defective components and/or the lack of necessary safety features, including but not limited to:

a manual safety, a tabbed trigger safety, a de-cocker, a hinged trigger, and/or a grip safety.

55. For many years since the weapon was first introduced to the market in 2014, Sig

Sauer has wantonly failed to recall the P320 despite knowing of scores of grievous wounds

inflicted upon users and bystanders.

56. Years before the incident occurred, through and including the date of Plaintiffs

incidents, which span from February 15, 2020 to October 3, 2022, Sig Sauer expressly represented

that the weapon could not fire without a trigger pull: “[w]e’ve designed safety elements into every

10
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 11 of 143

necessary feature on this pistol. From the trigger, to the striker and even the magazine, the P320

won’t fire unless you want it to”:

57. In additional marketing material, under the heading “Striker Safety,” Sig Sauer

further states: the striker safety “[p]revents the striker from being released unless the trigger is

pulled.”

58. At the same time, Sig Sauer contradictorily stated in the original owner’s manual

for the P320, which warns on page 25, that the weapon could fire if dropped without the trigger

being pulled if a round were “chambered,” i.e., inside the firing chamber of the weapon’s slide.

59. It is standard operating procedure for many U.S. law enforcement agencies, local

police departments, and the military, at a commander’s discretion, as well as customary for many

private owners, to carry pistols with a chambered round.

60. Sig Sauer advertises that users can carry the P320 with a round chambered by

annotating the P320’s capacity in various configurations as “10 + 1,” “12 + 1,” etc.

61. The “+ 1” represents a chambered round.

11
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 12 of 143

62. Sig Sauer was aware of the latter fact at the time it designed and manufactured all

its pistols, including the P320. The P320 is the first striker-fired pistol 1 it has ever manufactured.

63. Sig Sauer assembled the P320 using the same frame from an earlier hammer-fired

Sig Sauer model, the P250.

64. While competing for a $580 million contract to supply the United States Army

with a new service pistol in 2016, Sig Sauer’s prototype P320s exhibited nearly 200 malfunctions

during Army testing. The Army demanded that Sig Sauer fix all problems associated with the

prototype.

65. The Unites States Army only agreed to the purchase of the P320 after Sig Sauer

committed to designing an external manual safety for every military gun sold.

1
A striker-fired pistol is different from the traditional “hammer-fired” pistol. It contains no external hammer to be
pulled back by the user; rather, it has an internal “striker” that is held back under spring pressure inside the gun, like
a bow and arrow. The P320 is designed so that the rearward movement of the slide places the striker under significant
spring tension, making it ready to fire once it is released. The striker is held back by the weapon’s sear. In the below
illustrative photo of a typical striker-fired pistol the striker, in red, is held back by the sear, in blue.

12
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 13 of 143

66. Of the nearly 20 models of non-military P320s, only 1 model offers a manual

external safety as an “option.”

67. Sig Sauer’s custom-design program allows for hundreds of thousands of different

configurations of the P320, but does not allow users to add any type of external safety.

68. An external manual safety, at the time the subject gun was sold, was certainly

technologically feasible for the P320.

69. A properly functioning and active external manual safety, at the time the subject

gun was sold, would preclude a properly functioning P320 from firing in an unintended fashion.

70. Upon information and belief, every striker-fired pistol on the market is equipped

with some type of manual safety; whether it is a thumb safety, tab trigger safety, grip safety, de-

cocker, or hinge trigger.

71. Upon information and belief, Sig Sauer manufactures the only striker-fired pistols

on the market that are not equipped with any form of external manual safety.

72. Upon information and belief, every single-action pistol on the market is equipped

with some type of manual safety; whether it is a thumb safety, tab trigger safety, grip safety, de-

cocker, or hinge trigger.

73. Upon information and belief, Sig Sauer manufactures the only single-action

pistols on the market that are not equipped with any form of external manual safety.

74. Sometime after January 2017, when a Connecticut law enforcement agent was

shot by a P320 that fell to the ground from less than three feet, Sig Sauer removed the warning on

page 25 from the user manual regarding a chambered round, and replaced it with the following

language:

13
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 14 of 143

(emphasis in original).

75. Defendant, Sig Sauer had never before represented that mere “vibration” could

cause the weapon to discharge.

76. Upon information and belief, no other firearms manufacturer has ever made such

a representation.

77. Sig Sauer acknowledges in its own manuals that vibrations can cause its safety

mechanisms to fail to work as designed.

78. Since the P320’s manufacture and distribution into the stream of commerce, Sig

Sauer has expressly represented that the weapon possessed a “robust safety system”:

14
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 15 of 143

79. Despite their representations, Sig Sauer never made a tabbed trigger safety

available as an option for the P320. 2

80. In fact, Sig Sauer’s original design and manufacture of the P320 rendered the

weapon unreasonably dangerous for its intended uses and for any foreseeable uses, including

normal carrying, holstering, un-holstering, and/or handling.

81. When Sig Sauer shipped P320s to dealers for sale to civilian consumers, Sig Sauer

knew or should have known that the weapon was defective in its design and unreasonably

dangerous for its ordinary uses, intended uses, and all other foreseeable uses and that un-

commanded discharges could occur in the ordinary course of using the weapon.

82. Before Plaintiffs purchased their pistols, Sig Sauer was aware of other, prior un-

commanded discharges of the P320 platform, and other Sig Sauer pistols, many of which pre-dated

their purchases.

83. In 2015, a Pennsylvania State Trooper and firearms instructor killed another

trooper with his Sig Sauer pistol when it discharged without a trigger pull while conducting safety

training.

84. In 2016, a tactical response training instructor near Sacramento dropped his Sig

Sauer, firing a bullet into a student’s truck.

85. In the period between 2012 and 2015, the New York City Police Department

reported 10 un-commanded discharges involving Sig Sauer weapons.

86. In February 2016, a fully-holstered P320 discharged without a trigger pull inside

a Roscommon, Michigan Police Officer’s vehicle when the officer moved to exit the vehicle during

a snowstorm. The incident was captured on the Officer’s body-worn camera.

2
A tabbed-trigger safety is a small tab within the trigger which must be depressed in order for
the entire trigger to be depressed; thus preventing incidental discharges.

15
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 16 of 143

87. In 2016, the Surprise, Arizona Police Department complained to Sig Sauer of two

separate incidents of P320s firing without trigger pulls.

88. In October 2016, a P320 fired un-commanded on retired NYPD Officer Thomas

Frankenberry in South Carolina, severely injuring him. The spent casing did not eject.

89. In November 2016, a P320 fired un-commanded on an Officer in Holmes Beach

Florida, striking him in his leg.

90. In 2017, a Sheriff’s Deputy in Michigan’s Sig Sauer pistol discharged without a

trigger pull, striking a schoolteacher in the neck.

91. On January 5, 2017, a P320 shot a Stamford, Connecticut SWAT team member

in his left knee when the pistol fell from a distance of less than three feet to the ground while fully

holstered, refuting SIG SAUER’s express representations that the weapon is drop safe, cannot fire

without a trigger pull and does not require a safety to be drop safe.

92. On February 28, 2017, a P320 discharged without a trigger pull while in use by

the University of Cincinnati Police Department.

93. On June 14, 2017, a P320 discharged without a trigger pull in Wilsonville,

Oregon.

94. On June 20, 2017, a P320 discharged without a trigger pull while in use by the

Howell Township, New Jersey Police Department.

95. In June of 2017, Sig Sauer shipped approximately 800 P320s to the Loudoun

County Sheriff’s Department, privately assuring its leadership, Sheriff David Chapman that the

problems with the weapon would be fixed, but that for the time being it had to deal with the weapon

as currently manufactured and designed. 3

3
As noted infra, both a non-upgraded and “upgraded” version of these P320s later fired
un-commanded on and hit at least two Loudoun County deputy sheriffs in 2018 and 2019.

16
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 17 of 143

96. On July 28, 2017, a P320 discharged without a trigger pull in Tarrant County,

Texas.

97. On August 4, 2017, the Stamford SWAT team member sued Sig Sauer in U.S.

District Court in Connecticut for an un-commanded discharge of a commercial version of the P320

that shot him in his knee.

98. Four days later, Sig Sauer’s CEO released a statement stating: “there have been

zero (0) reported drop-related P320 incidents in the U.S. Commercial market.”

99. This statement was false, in view of Sig Sauer’s knowledge that Officer Sherperis

in Connecticut had been shot by a drop fire some eight months earlier with the commercial version

of the P320, and that several other un-commanded discharges of the P320 had occurred before that

date.

100. On August 8, 2017, Sig Sauer announced a “voluntary upgrade” program for the

P320 pistol, stating that the pistol meets “rigorous testing protocols for global military and law

enforcement agencies” and all “U.S. standard for safety.”

101. This statement was also false, as there are no federal government standards for

gun safety, a fact known to Sig Sauer when it issued this press release.

102. No federal agency oversees how firearms are designed or built. Firearms were

expressly exempted by Congress from any federal regulation when it created the Consumer

Product Safety Commission in 1972.

103. Sig Sauer’s “upgrade” program, which was presented to the public as purely

optional, not urgent, and not mandatory, offered to mark existing commercial versions of the P320

“better” by installing a much lighter trigger, and internal disconnect switch, an improved sear to

prevent un-commanded discharges.

17
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 18 of 143

104. On August 9, 2017, the Police Chief of Morrow, Georgia issued and emergency

order removing the P320 from service.

105. In October 2017, a P320 discharged without a trigger pull in Georgia when an

officer fell to the ground in pursuit of a suspect. His weapon was holstered and fired simply when

he struck the ground.

106. On November 12, 2017, a P320 discharged without a trigger pull in Dallas

County, Texas.

107. On February 2, 2018, Tyler Herman of McCloud, Oklahoma was removing a

holster containing his P320 from his belt. While in the process of removing the holster, and without

him touching the trigger, Herman’s P320 discharged, striking Herman and causing catastrophic

injuries.

108. On February 7, 2018, Loudoun County, Virginia Deputy Sheriff Marcie

Vadnais’s P320 fired on her un-commanded in Virginia, severing her right femur causing

catastrophic skeletal injury, deformity, three general anesthesia surgeries, severe emotional

distress, and related trauma, ending her career. Upon CAT scanning her P320, it was found to have

both a design and manufacturing defect: crossed sear springs that apply upward spring pressure to

the sear to keep it from releasing the striker.

109. Months later in April 2018, Sig Sauer issued a second “voluntary upgrade” notice

to all users or owners of the P320, but still did not recall the weapon.

110. In May 2018, civilian Gunter Walker reported to Sig Sauer that his P320 fired on

him un-commanded when he placed the weapon down on his nightstand, shooting him through the

palm of his left hand.

18
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 19 of 143

111. In June 2018, a Williams County, Ohio Officer reported that his P320 discharged

twice in one moment as he was merely attempting to move the slide backward. One round grazed

the Officer’s arm; the other blew through his patrol car’s driver’s side door.

112. In May 2018, a Rancho Cucamonga, California Officer reported that his P320

fired un-commanded merely while he was walking inside his department locker room; the casing

of the round did not eject.

113. In October 2018, a P320 fired un-commanded on Lieutenant Letrell Hayes in

Georgia while he was holstering it, causing severe tunneling injuries to his right thigh and calf.

114. In October 2018, retired Law Enforcement Officer Stephen Mayes’ P320 fired

un-commanded while seated in its holster, causing severe injury to his right leg.

115. In December 2018, civilian Robert Lang’s P320 fired on him un-commanded and

caused serve tunneling wounds to this right leg.

116. On May 19, 2019, the P320 of Lieutenant Thomas Ahern of the Cambridge,

Massachusetts SWAT team fired un-commanded inside a SWAT van with six other occupants

while he was working a shift for the annual MayFair event near Harvard Square.

117. The round struck a cellphone case on Ahern’s left leg, deflected into a SWAT

gear bag and came to rest in a ballistic helmet, narrowly missing everyone else in the van. The

casing of the round did not eject. Lieutenant Ahern is a Sig Sauer certified armorer 4 on the P320.

4
According to Sig Sauer documents, “[t]he SIG SAUER factory armorer certification enables the
agency armorer or individual user to completely disassemble, inspect, service, and re-assemble
associated weapon systems without voiding the factory warranty. Proper and routine weapon
maintenance and inspection of a firearm are essential to ensure maximum reliability. Factory
armorer courses at SIG SAUER Academy certify agency armorers or individuals to maintain,
inspect, service, and repair selected SIG SAUER firearms while preserving the factory warranty.
Upon successful completion, armorers will fully understand each firearm and be factory-certified
for a period of three years.” https://www.Sig Sauersaueracademy.com/course/armorer-
certification

19
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 20 of 143

118. On July 23, 2019, a P320 fired un-commanded on Officer Walter Collete, Jr. of

the Somerville, Massachusetts Police Department hitting him in his leg and causing substantial

injuries to his leg.

119. In August 2019, a Philadelphia Transit Officer Craig Jacklyn’s P320 fired un-

commanded while fully-holstered, nearly striking a bystander in the subway concourse. The

incident was captured on video, and the officer was returned to duty the next day.

120. The transit authority replaced all Sig Sauer P320s, and later fully exonerated the

officer of any alleged wrongdoing in view of the content of the videotape of the incident showing

that it fired without a trigger pull. The officer, Craig Jacklyn, later stated:

This weapon is a hazard. I actually spoke with a lawyer for my situation. Although no one
was hurt...someone could have been killed. I'm angry that I was put in a potentially life
altering position with a product deemed "safe" by its manufacturer. The fact that officers
are carrying this weapon on the job and at home around family thinking it's safe even while
resting in its holster has me very angry. Everything that I've told you is documented through
2 Investigative Services. Philadelphia Police Firearms Investigative Unit/ Officer Involved
Shooting Incident Unit and SEPTA Transit Police Criminal Investigations Unit. There is
station video footage/ body worn camera footage as well.

121. On September 3, 2019, another P320 in use by the Loudoun County Virginia’s

Sheriff’s Office fired un-commanded on another Loudoun County Deputy Sheriff, Carl Costello,

hitting his leg.

122. On October 10, 2019, Officer Jacques Desrosiers, also of the Cambridge,

Massachusetts Police Department, was shot by his P320 without him pulling the trigger. The round

caused massive and life-changing injuries to Officer Desrosiers. The spent casing of the round did

not eject.

123. On October 11, 2019, a P320 fired un-commanded on Veterans Affairs Police

Officer Frank J. Kneski, striking him beneath his lower back as he was un-holstering the weapon.

Upon inspection it was found that the spent casing did not eject.

20
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 21 of 143

124. On November 9, 2019, a P320 fired un-commanded on Officer Matthew Gardette

of the Manteca, California Police Department as he was getting ready for work. As he merely

attempted to place and fasten his duty belt around his waist, the P320 discharged inside the holster.

125. The holster was a Safariland level three retention holster with a hood securing the

pistol. The round blew out the bottom of the holster, impacted the locker room floor, and missed

both Officer Gardette and fellow officers by inches as it ricocheted into a locker door.

126. On December 2, 2019, a P320 fired un-commanded while in the possession of

Detective David Albert, also of the Cambridge, Massachusetts Police Department, as he was in

the process of putting his duty belt on.

127. Upon information and belief, employees at Sig Sauer’s own training academy in

New Hampshire have admitted to un-commanded discharges causing injury in both 2016 and

2017.

128. On February 27, 2020, Tampa Police Department Reserve Office Howard

Northrop was severely and permanently injured when his service-issued P320 discharged without

a trigger pull, while inside his service-issued holster.

129. Northrop was struck in the left leg by a 9mm hollow-point bullet, which

mushroomed and caused massive internal damage.

130. On September 21, 2020, a P320 fired un-commanded while in the possession of

Deportation Officer Keith Slatowski, of Immigration and Customs Enforcement during a training

exercise in New Castle, Delaware.

131. Slatowski’s P320 fired while in its holster, and the casing did not eject.

132. Slatowski was severely wounded and has not been able to return to duty since the

accident as of the date of this filing.

21
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 22 of 143

133. On January 23, 2021, civilian Timothy Davis was severely injured when his Sig

Sauer P320 X-Carry discharged in its holster without a trigger pull.

134. On June 2, 2021, Troy, New York Police Officer Michael Colwell suffered

permanent injuries when his P320 discharged in his holster during a training exercise while his

hands were not touching the gun.

135. On February 7, 2022, Honesdale, Pennsylvania Police Officer Donald Thatcher’s

P320 discharged from its holster while he was exiting his car.

136. Officer Thatcher’s incident was captured on video, which clearly shows that

Officer Thatcher’s hands were not touching his holster at the time the P320 discharged.

137. Following this incident, the Honesdale, Pennsylvania Police Department pulled

all P320s out of service and sued Sig Sauer for a refund of the firearms.

138. On March 28, 2022, Houston, Texas Police Sergeant Marvin Reyes’s P320

discharged from its holster while he was entering his car.

139. Sergeant Reyes’s incident was captured on video, which unmistakably shows that

Sergeant Reyes’s hands were not near his holster at the time the P320 discharged.

140. On September 10, 2022, a Milwaukee Police Officer’s holstered P320 discharged

while the officer was attempting to detain a suspect.

141. Following this incident, the third in as many years involving a Milwaukee Police

Officer, the Milwaukee Police Association filed a lawsuit against the City of Milwaukee to have

the gun removed from service.

142. In response to the incidents of Milwaukee Police Officers being injured by the

P320, Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman announced on October 31, 2022 that the

22
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 23 of 143

Milwaukee Police Department would replace every single P320 in its arsenal with one of Sig

Sauer’s competitor pistols.

143. Between 2015-2022, there have been at least nine incidents where an Oklahoma

Highway Patrol Officer had a P320 discharge when the officer did not pull the trigger.

144. Internal documents from Immigration Customs Enforcement provide that

unintended discharges skyrocketed within the agency once it switched its primary weapon from a

Glock to the P320.

145. Sig Sauer is aware of other claims of unintended discharges involving the P320

beyond those identified above.

146. To date, Sig Sauer has never issued a mandatory recall of the P320 for repairs;

though it has done so in the past for other of its products with far lesser sales.

147. In an interview in 2013, Sig Sauer’s former Chief Financial Officer, Timothy

Scullin, just before the P320 was brought to market in 2014, noted that Sig Sauer’s revenue had

risen approximately 1,400 percent from 2012 to 2013. He further stated that Sig Sauer’s growth

has outpaced the firearms’ industry’s growth by “two or three times.”

148. When asked what some of his biggest professional challenges he has faced in his

career, he stated:

At Sig Sauer, to grow this fast, people get really challenged. When you’re
growing 70 to 80 percent in a year, all the systems get stretched, and the people
really get stretched. You have to be able to manage multiple tasks in a very fast
environment, and in an environment that’s highly regulated, so you can’t mess
up, otherwise you get shut down. It just creates a tremendous of stress on the
people in the system. But we’ve got people that have risen to the challenge.

23
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 24 of 143

PLAINTIFFS’ INCIDENTS

Fernando Armendariz

149. Prior to April 1, 2021, Fernando Armendariz had undergone extensive firearms

training while serving in the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency

(“ICE”).

150. Prior to April 1, 2021, Armendariz was issued a P320 by ICE.

151. On April 1, 2021, Armendariz was participating in an annual inventory and

removed his P320 to review its serial number.

152. On that date, Armendariz’s pistol suddenly and unexpectedly discharged while

he was re-holstering it.

153. Armendariz never touched the P320’s trigger and did not intend to fire the gun.

154. The bullet struck Armendariz in his right thigh, causing substantial injury,

maceration of tissue, blood loss, and nerve damage, along with severe emotional trauma.

155. While the full extent of the physical damage to Armendariz’s leg is not yet

known, he has had and it is likely that he will have trouble running, sitting, or standing as he had

before the incident, and will likely never be able to return to his pre-incident form as a result of

diminished physical capacity.

156. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, carelessness,

recklessness, strict liability and/or other liability producing conduct, Armendariz was forced to

suffer serious, disabling, and permanent injuries and emotional distress, the full extent of which

has yet to be determined. Armendariz has in the past and is reasonably likely to require medicines,

medical care and treatment. Armendariz has in the past and may in the future continue to be

compelled to expend monies and incur further obligations for such medical care and treatment.

24
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 25 of 143

Armendariz has in the past and may in the future continue to suffer agonizing aches, pains, and

psychological and emotional anguish. Armendariz has in the past and may in the future continue

to be disabled from performing his usual duties, occupations, and avocations, all to Armendariz’s

great loss and detriment. The incident has resulted in substantial physical harm and related trauma

to Armendariz, who has received substantial and ongoing treatments and medicines.

Matthew Breedon

157. Prior to April 4, 2022 Matthew Breedon had undergone extensive firearms

training in his personal capacity as a gun owner; including training with his police department’s

SWAT team while working as a prosecutor.

158. Prior to April 4, 2022, purchased a P320 for his personal use.

159. On April 4, 2022 Breedon had his P320 in its holster.

160. On that date, Breedon’s pistol suddenly and unexpectedly discharged while he

was attempting to remove it from its holster.

161. Breedon never touched the P320’s trigger and did not intend to fire the gun.

162. The bullet struck Breedon in his right thigh, causing substantial injury,

maceration of tissue, blood loss, and nerve damage, along with severe emotional trauma.

163. While the full extent of the physical damage to Breedon’s leg is not yet known,

he has had and it is likely that he will have trouble running, sitting, or standing as he had before

the incident, and will likely never be able to return to his pre-incident form as a result of diminished

physical capacity.

164. Breedon has been deprived of vocational opportunities as a result of this incident.

165. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, carelessness,

recklessness, strict liability and/or other liability producing conduct, Breedon was forced to suffer

25
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 26 of 143

serious, disabling, and permanent injuries and emotional distress, the full extent of which has yet

to be determined. Breedon has in the past and is reasonably likely to require medicines, medical

care and treatment. Breedon has in the past and may in the future continue to be compelled to

expend monies and incur further obligations for such medical care and treatment. Breedon has in

the past and may in the future continue to suffer agonizing aches, pains, and psychological and

emotional anguish. Breedon has in the past and may in the future continue to be disabled from

performing his usual duties, occupations, and avocations, all to Breedon’s great loss and detriment.

The incident has resulted in substantial physical harm and related trauma to Breedon, who has

received substantial and ongoing treatments and medicines.

Zachary Brown

166. Prior to January 15, 2022, Zachary Brown had undergone extensive firearms

training in his personal capacity as a gun owner.

167. On January 15, 2022, Brown was removing his still-holstered P320 from his

pants.

168. On that date, Brown’s still-holstered pistol suddenly and unexpectedly discharged

while he was removing it from his pants.

169. Brown never touched the P320’s trigger and did not intend to fire the gun.

170. The bullet struck Brown in his right leg, causing substantial injury, maceration of

tissue, blood loss, and nerve damage, along with severe emotional trauma.

171. While the full extent of the physical damage to Brown’s leg is not yet known, he

has had and it is likely that he will have trouble running, sitting, or standing as he had before the

incident, and will likely never be able to return to his pre-incident form as a result of diminished

physical capacity.

26
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 27 of 143

172. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, carelessness,

recklessness, strict liability and/or other liability producing conduct, Brown was forced to suffer

serious, disabling, and permanent injuries and emotional distress, the full extent of which has yet

to be determined. Brown has in the past and is reasonably likely to require medicines, medical

care and treatment. Brown has in the past and may in the future continue to be compelled to

expend monies and incur further obligations for such medical care and treatment. Brown has in

the past and may in the future continue to suffer agonizing aches, pains, and psychological and

emotional anguish. Brown has in the past and may in the future continue to be disabled from

performing his usual duties, occupations, and avocations, all to Brown’s great loss and detriment.

The incident has resulted in substantial physical harm and related trauma to Brown, who has

received substantial and ongoing treatments and medicines.

Catherine Chargualaf

173. Prior to December 8, 2020, Catherine Chargualaf had undergone extensive

firearms training as an ICE agent.

174. Prior to December 8, 2020, Chargualaf was issued a P320 by ICE.

175. On December 8, 2020, Chargualaf was completing a training exercise with a P320

in Mt. Juliet, Tennessee.

176. On that date, Chargualaf’s P320 suddenly and unexpectedly discharged while in

its holster.

177. Chargualaf never touched the P320’s trigger and did not intend to fire the gun.

178. The bullet struck Chargualaf in her right hip, causing substantial injury,

maceration of tissue, blood loss, and nerve damage, along with severe emotional trauma.

27
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 28 of 143

179. While the full extent of the physical damage to Chargualaf’s hip is not yet known,

she has had and it is likely that she will have trouble running, sitting, or standing as she had before

the incident, and will likely never be able to return to her pre-incident form as a result of diminished

physical capacity.

180. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, carelessness,

recklessness, strict liability and/or other liability producing conduct, Chargualaf was forced to

suffer serious, disabling, and permanent injuries and emotional distress, the full extent of which

has yet to be determined. Chargualaf has in the past and is reasonably likely to require medicines,

medical care and treatment. Chargualaf has in the past and may in the future continue to be

compelled to expend monies and incur further obligations for such medical care and treatment.

Chargualaf has in the past and may in the future continue to suffer agonizing aches, pains, and

psychological and emotional anguish. Chargualaf has in the past and may in the future continue

to be disabled from performing her usual duties, occupations, and avocations, all to Chargualaf’s

great loss and detriment. The incident has resulted in substantial physical harm and related trauma

to Chargualaf, who has received substantial and ongoing treatments and medicines.

William Clegg

181. Prior to November 7, 2022, William Clegg had undergone extensive firearms

training in his personal capacity as a gun owner.

182. In August 2022, William Clegg purchased a P320 from House of Guns in

Boswell, Oklahoma.

183. On November 7, 2022, Clegg placed his holstered P320 on a chair.

184. On that date, Clegg lightly tossed a small wooden paddle onto the chair, where it

incidentally made contact with the holstered P320.

28
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 29 of 143

185. When the wooden paddle made contact with the holstered P320, the gun

discharged.

186. Clegg never touched the P320’s trigger and did not intend to fire the gun.

187. The bullet struck Clegg in the front of his right thigh and then his left thigh,

causing substantial injury, maceration of tissue, blood loss, and nerve damage, along with severe

emotional trauma.

188. While the full extent of the physical damage to Clegg’s leg is not yet known, he

has had and it is likely that he will have trouble running, sitting, or standing as he had before the

incident, and will likely never be able to return to his pre-incident form as a result of diminished

physical capacity.

189. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, carelessness,

recklessness, strict liability and/or other liability producing conduct, Clegg was forced to suffer

serious, disabling, and permanent injuries and emotional distress, the full extent of which has yet

to be determined. Clegg has in the past and is reasonably likely to require medicines, medical care

and treatment. Clegg has in the past and may in the future continue to be compelled to expend

monies and incur further obligations for such medical care and treatment. Clegg has in the past

and may in the future continue to suffer agonizing aches, pains, and psychological and emotional

anguish. Clegg has in the past and may in the future continue to be disabled from performing his

usual duties, occupations, and avocations, all to Clegg’s great loss and detriment. The incident has

resulted in substantial physical harm and related trauma to Clegg, who has received substantial

and ongoing treatments and medicines.

29
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 30 of 143

Dionicio Delgado

190. Prior to February 12, 2022, Dionicio Delgado had undergone extensive firearms

training while serving in the United States Navy.

191. Delgado served as a Navy Small Arms Instructor; training other servicemembers

on the safe use of firearms.

192. Prior to February 12, 2022, Delgado purchased a P320 for his personal use.

193. On February 12, 2022, Delgado had his P320 in its holster.

194. On that date, Delgado’s P320 suddenly and unexpectedly discharged while still

in its holster.

195. Delgado never touched the P320’s trigger and did not intend to fire the gun.

196. The bullet struck Delgado in his right leg, causing substantial injury, maceration

of tissue, blood loss, and nerve damage, along with severe emotional trauma.

197. While the full extent of the physical damage to Delgado’s leg is not yet known,

he has had and it is likely that he will have trouble running, sitting, or standing as he had before

the incident, and will likely never be able to return to his pre-incident form as a result of diminished

physical capacity.

198. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, carelessness,

recklessness, strict liability and/or other liability producing conduct, Delgado was forced to suffer

serious, disabling, and permanent injuries and emotional distress, the full extent of which has yet

to be determined. Delgado has in the past and is reasonably likely to require medicines, medical

care and treatment. Delgado has in the past and may in the future continue to be compelled to

expend monies and incur further obligations for such medical care and treatment. Delgado has in

the past and may in the future continue to suffer agonizing aches, pains, and psychological and

30
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 31 of 143

emotional anguish. Delgado has in the past and may in the future continue to be disabled from

performing his usual duties, occupations, and avocations, all to Delgado’s great loss and detriment.

The incident has resulted in substantial physical harm and related trauma to Delgado, who has

received substantial and ongoing treatments and medicines.

Mary Doffeny

199. Prior to December 5, 2021, Mary Doffeny had undergone extensive firearms

training while serving in the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency.

200. Prior to December 5, 2021, Doffeny was issued a P320 by ICE.

201. On December 5, 2021, Doffeny was at Rose Casino in St. Rose, Louisiana.

202. On that date, Doffeny’s pistol suddenly and unexpectedly discharged while in a

dedicated firearm pocket within her purse.

203. Doffeny never touched the P320’s trigger and did not intend to fire the gun.

204. The bullet struck Doffeny’s seat, causing Doffeny to suffer significant post

traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety.

205. Doffeny’s incident was caught on video, which clearly shows that she did not pull

the trigger.

206. While the full extent of the mental damage to Doffeny is not yet known, she has

had and it is likely that she will have trouble functioning as she had before the incident, and will

likely never be able to return to her pre-incident form as a result of diminished emotional capacity.

207. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, carelessness,

recklessness, strict liability and/or other liability producing conduct, Doffeny was forced to suffer

serious and disabling emotional distress, the full extent of which has yet to be determined. Doffeny

has in the past and is reasonably likely to require medicines, medical care and treatment. Doffeny

31
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 32 of 143

has in the past and may in the future continue to be compelled to expend monies and incur further

obligations for such medical care and treatment. Doffeny has in the past and may in the future

continue to suffer agonizing emotional anguish. Doffeny has in the past and may in the future

continue to be disabled from performing her usual duties, occupations, and avocations, all to

Doffeny’s great loss and detriment. The incident has resulted in substantial trauma to Doffeny,

who has received substantial and ongoing treatments and medicines.

David Duff

208. Prior to his February 15, 2020 incident, Duff had undergone extensive firearms

training in his career as a Pasco County Sheriff’s Deputy in Florida.

209. Prior to February 15, 2020, Duff was issued his P320 by the Pasco County

Sheriff’s Office.

210. On that date, Duff had his holstered weapon on his duty belt.

211. On that date, Duff’s holstered P320 suddenly and unexpectedly discharged when

as he was putting on his duty belt.

212. At the time of discharge, Duff’s hands were not on the P320 or its holster.

213. Duff’s weapon failed to cycle and the spent shell casing was removed from the

chamber by crime scene technicians.

214. Duff never touched the P320’s trigger and did not intend to fire the gun.

215. The bullet struck Duff in his left knee, causing substantial injury, maceration of

tissue, blood loss, and nerve damage, along with severe emotional trauma.

216. While the full extent of the physical damage to Duff’s leg is not yet known, he

has had and it is likely that he will have trouble running, sitting, or standing as he had before the

32
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 33 of 143

incident, and will likely never be able to return to his pre-incident form as a result of diminished

physical capacity.

217. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, carelessness,

recklessness, strict liability and/or other liability producing conduct, Duff was forced to suffer

serious, disabling, and permanent injuries and emotional distress, the full extent of which has yet

to be determined. Duff has in the past and is reasonably likely to require medicines, medical care

and treatment. Duff has in the past and may in the future continue to be compelled to expend

monies and incur further obligations for such medical care and treatment. Duff has in the past and

may in the future continue to suffer agonizing aches, pains, and psychological and emotional

anguish. Duff has in the past and may in the future continue to be disabled from performing his

usual duties, occupations, and avocations, all to Duff’s great loss and detriment. The incident has

resulted in substantial physical harm and related trauma to Duff, who has received substantial and

ongoing treatments and medicines.

Juan Duran

218. Prior to February 26, 2022, Duran had undergone extensive firearms training in

his personal capacity as a gun owner.

219. Prior to February 26, 2022, Duran purchased a P320 for his personal use.

220. On that date, Duran placed his holster on his belt.

221. On that date, Duran’s pistol suddenly and unexpectedly discharged as he stepped

forward with his right leg.

222. Duran’s bullet casing failed to fully eject and became stuck in the slide/ejection

port (a “stovepipe jam”).

223. Duran never touched the P320’s trigger and did not intend to fire the gun.

33
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 34 of 143

224. The bullet struck Duran in his right thigh, shattered his bone, and exited his right

thigh, causing substantial injury, maceration of tissue, blood loss, and nerve damage, along with

severe emotional trauma.

225. While the full extent of the physical damage to Duran’s leg is not yet known, he

has had and it is likely that he will have trouble running, sitting, or standing as he had before the

incident, and will likely never be able to return to his pre-incident form as a result of diminished

physical capacity.

226. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, carelessness,

recklessness, strict liability and/or other liability producing conduct, Duran was forced to suffer

serious, disabling, and permanent injuries and emotional distress, the full extent of which has yet

to be determined. Duran has in the past and is reasonably likely to require medicines, medical care

and treatment. Duran has in the past and may in the future continue to be compelled to expend

monies and incur further obligations for such medical care and treatment. Duran has in the past

and may in the future continue to suffer agonizing aches, pains, and psychological and emotional

anguish. Duran has in the past and may in the future continue to be disabled from performing his

usual duties, occupations, and avocations, all to Duran’s great loss and detriment. The incident has

resulted in substantial physical harm and related trauma to Duran, who has received substantial

and ongoing treatments and medicines.

Kyla Ellis

227. Prior to June 15, 2021, Ellis had undergone extensive firearms training by hunting

throughout her lifetime.

228. Prior to June 15, 2021, Ellis purchased a P320 for her personal use.

34
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 35 of 143

229. On June 15, 2021, Ellis was transferring her holstered pistol from her right hand

to her left hand.

230. On that date, Ellis’s pistol suddenly and unexpectedly discharged while in its

holster.

231. Ellis never touched the P320’s trigger and did not intend to fire the gun.

232. The bullet struck and traveled through Ellis’s left wrist, causing substantial injury,

maceration of tissue, blood loss, and nerve damage, along with severe emotional trauma.

233. The bullet narrowly missed Ellis’s husband, who was sitting next to her in the

car.

234. While the full extent of the physical damage to Ellis’s wrist is not yet known, she

has had and it is likely that she will have gripping, grasping, and holding as she had before the

incident, and will likely never be able to return to her pre-incident form as a result of diminished

physical capacity.

235. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, carelessness,

recklessness, strict liability and/or other liability producing conduct, Ellis was forced to suffer

serious, disabling, and permanent injuries and emotional distress, the full extent of which has yet

to be determined. Ellis has in the past and is reasonably likely to require medicines, medical care

and treatment. Ellis has in the past and may in the future continue to be compelled to expend

monies and incur further obligations for such medical care and treatment. Ellis has in the past and

may in the future continue to suffer agonizing aches, pains, and psychological and emotional

anguish. Ellis has in the past and may in the future continue to be disabled from performing her

usual duties, occupations, and avocations, all to Ellis’ great loss and detriment. The incident has

35
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 36 of 143

resulted in substantial physical harm and related trauma to Ellis, who has received substantial and

ongoing treatments and medicines.

James Garth Jr.

236. Prior to August 18, 2021, Garth had undergone extensive firearms training while

serving as a sheriff’s deputy in Richmond County, Georgia.

237. Prior to August 18, 2021, Garth was issued a P320 by Richmond County Sheriff’s

Office.

238. On August 18, 2021, Garth put on a duty belt, which has a P320-specific

Safariland holster on the right hip.

239. On that date, Garth put the P320 in the holster.

240. On that date, while Garth was putting the gun in the holster, it suddenly

discharged while the web of his hand was on the back of the gun.

241. Garth never touched the P320’s trigger and did not intend to fire the gun.

242. The bullet struck Garth in the top of his right buttock and exited through his thigh

causing substantial injury, maceration of tissue, and blood loss.

243. Following the discharge of the P320, Garth missed six (6) weeks of work, and

upon return, refused to use the P320 again.

244. While the full extent of the physical damage to Garth’s buttock and thigh is not

yet known, he will likely never be able to return to his pre-incident form as a result of diminished

physical capacity.

245. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, carelessness,

recklessness, strict liability and/or other liability producing conduct, Garth was forced to suffer

serious, disabling, and permanent injuries and emotional distress, the full extent of which has yet

36
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 37 of 143

to be determined. Garth has in the past and is reasonably likely to require medicines, medical care

and treatment. Garth has in the past and may in the future continue to be compelled to expend

monies and incur further obligations for such medical care and treatment. Garth has in the past and

may in the future continue to suffer agonizing aches, pains, and psychological and emotional

anguish. The incident has resulted in substantial physical harm and related trauma to Garth, who

has received substantial and ongoing treatments and medicines.

Joseph Halase

246. Prior to July 27, 2020, Halase had undergone extensive firearms training while

serving in the United States Marine Corps and United States Immigration and Customs

Enforcement Agency.

247. Prior to July 27, 2020, Halase was issued a P320 by ICE.

248. On July 27, 2020, Halase removed his P320 from his holster.

249. On that date, Halase’s pistol suddenly and unexpectedly discharged while he was

re-holstering it.

250. Halase never touched the P320’s trigger and did not intend to fire the gun.

251. The bullet struck Halase in his right leg, causing substantial injury, maceration of

tissue, blood loss, and nerve damage, along with severe emotional trauma.

252. While the full extent of the physical damage to Halase’s leg is not yet known, he

has had and it is likely that he will have trouble running, sitting, or standing as he had before the

incident, and will likely never be able to return to his pre-incident form as a result of diminished

physical capacity.

253. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, carelessness,

recklessness, strict liability and/or other liability producing conduct, Halase was forced to suffer

37
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 38 of 143

serious, disabling, and permanent injuries and emotional distress, the full extent of which has yet

to be determined. Halase has in the past and is reasonably likely to require medicines, medical

care and treatment. Halase has in the past and may in the future continue to be compelled to

expend monies and incur further obligations for such medical care and treatment. Halase has in

the past and may in the future continue to suffer agonizing aches, pains, and psychological and

emotional anguish. Halase has in the past and may in the future continue to be disabled from

performing his usual duties, occupations, and avocations, all to Halase’s great loss and detriment.

The incident has resulted in substantial physical harm and related trauma to Halase, who has

received substantial and ongoing treatments and medicines.

Amy Hendel

254. Prior to May 12, 2021, Hendel had undergone extensive firearms training while

serving in the United States Department of Homeland Security.

255. Prior to May 12, 2021, Hendel was issued a P320 by ICE.

256. On May 12, 2021, Hendel was using a P320 during qualification exercises.

257. On that date, Hendel’s pistol suddenly and unexpectedly discharged while in its

holster.

258. Hendel never touched the P320’s trigger and did not intend to fire the gun.

259. The shell casing did not eject from Hendel’s weapon.

260. The bullet struck Hendel in her upper right thigh, travelled through her thigh,

exited her thigh, reentered through her calf, travelled through her calf, and exited her shin, causing

substantial injury, including a shattered tibia, hip damage, maceration of tissue, blood loss, and

nerve damage, along with severe emotional trauma.

38
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 39 of 143

261. While the full extent of the physical damage to Hendel’s leg is not yet known,

she has had and it is likely that she will have trouble running, sitting, or standing as she had before

the incident, and will likely never be able to return to her pre-incident form as a result of diminished

physical capacity.

262. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, carelessness,

recklessness, strict liability and/or other liability producing conduct, Hendel was forced to suffer

serious, disabling, and permanent injuries and emotional distress, the full extent of which has yet

to be determined. Hendel has in the past and is reasonably likely to require medicines, medical

care and treatment. Hendel has in the past and may in the future continue to be compelled to

expend monies and incur further obligations for such medical care and treatment. Hendel has in

the past and may in the future continue to suffer agonizing aches, pains, and psychological and

emotional anguish. Hendel has in the past and may in the future continue to be disabled from

performing her usual duties, occupations, and avocations, all to Hendel’s great loss and detriment.

The incident has resulted in substantial physical harm and related trauma to Hendel, who has

received substantial and ongoing treatments and medicines.

Nathan Henyan

263. Prior to April 15, 2020, Henyan had undergone extensive firearms training while

serving in the United States Marines and the Yakima Police Department.

264. Prior to April 15, 2020, Henyan purchased a P320 for use as a Yakima Police

Officer.

265. The P320 was authorized by the Yakima Police Department for use by officers.

266. On April 15, 2020, Henyan had his P320 in a holster on his left ribcage.

39
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 40 of 143

267. While reaching across his chest for the P320 and placing his hand on the grip, the

pistol suddenly and unexpectedly discharged.

268. Henyan never touched the P320’s trigger and did not intend to fire the gun.

269. The bullet struck Henyan in his left hip, travelled through his left leg, and exited

at his hamstring, causing substantial injury, maceration of tissue, blood loss, and nerve damage,

along with severe emotional trauma.

270. While the full extent of the physical damage to Henyan’s leg is not yet known, he

has had and it is likely that he will have trouble running, sitting, or standing as he had before the

incident, and will likely never be able to return to his pre-incident form as a result of diminished

physical capacity.

271. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, carelessness,

recklessness, strict liability and/or other liability producing conduct, Henyan was forced to suffer

serious, disabling, and permanent injuries and emotional distress, the full extent of which has yet

to be determined. Henyan has in the past and is reasonably likely to require medicines, medical

care and treatment. Henyan has in the past and may in the future continue to be compelled to

expend monies and incur further obligations for such medical care and treatment. Henyan has in

the past and may in the future continue to suffer agonizing aches, pains, and psychological and

emotional anguish. Henyan has in the past and may in the future continue to be disabled from

performing his usual duties, occupations, and avocations, all to Henyan’s great loss and detriment.

The incident has resulted in substantial physical harm and related trauma to Henyan, who has

received substantial and ongoing treatments and medicines.

40
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 41 of 143

Dwight Jackson

272. Prior to May 25, 2022, Jackson had undergone extensive firearms training while

serving as a Georgia State correctional officer, a police officer in Bladensburg, Maryland, and a

police officer in Monticello, Georgia.

273. Prior to May 25, 2022, Jackson purchased a P320 for personal use.

274. On May 25, 2022, with the P320 in a holster, and the holster secured to his belt,

Jackson leaned over to pick something up, then leaned up.

275. On that date, Jackson’s P320 suddenly and unexpectedly discharged.

276. Jackson’s hands were not on the gun or the holster at the time the gun went off.

277. Jackson never touched the P320’s trigger and did not intend to fire the gun.

278. The bullet struck Jackson in his right hip, out of his buttocks, and back into his

left ankle, causing substantial injury, maceration of tissue, blood loss, and nerve damage, along

with severe emotional trauma.

279. While the full extent of the physical damage to Jackson’s hip, buttocks, and ankle

is not yet known, he has had and it is likely that he will have trouble running, sitting, or standing

as he had before the incident, and will likely never be able to return to his pre-incident form as a

result of diminished physical capacity.

280. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, carelessness,

recklessness, strict liability and/or other liability producing conduct, Jackson was forced to suffer

serious, disabling, and permanent injuries and emotional distress, the full extent of which has yet

to be determined. Jackson has in the past and is reasonably likely to require medicines, medical

care and treatment. Jackson has in the past and may in the future continue to be compelled to

expend monies and incur further obligations for such medical care and treatment. Jackson has in

41
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 42 of 143

the past and may in the future continue to suffer agonizing aches, pains, and psychological and

emotional anguish. Jackson has in the past and may in the future continue to be disabled from

performing his usual duties, occupations, and avocations, all to Jackson’s great loss and detriment.

The incident has resulted in substantial physical harm and related trauma to Jackson, who has

received substantial treatments and medicines.

Adam Maritato and Robert Parks

281. Prior to July 14, 2020, Maritato and Parks had undergone extensive firearms

training while serving as police officers.

282. Prior to July 14, 2020, Maritato and Parks were issued P320s by the Milwaukee

Police Department.

283. On July 14, 2020, Maritato and Parks were working as partners in the Milwaukee

Police Department.

284. On that date, Maritato and Parks had their P320s in their holsters while they were

in the process of detaining an uncooperative suspect.

285. Parks’s fully holstered P320 discharged from within its holster while both of

Parks’s hands were on the suspect.

286. The bullet struck Maritato in his right leg, causing substantial injury, maceration

of tissue, blood loss, and nerve damage, along with severe emotional trauma.

287. While the full extent of the physical damage to Maritato’s leg is not yet known,

he has had and it is likely that he will have trouble running, sitting, or standing as he had before

the incident, and will likely never be able to return to his pre-incident form as a result of diminished

physical capacity.

42
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 43 of 143

288. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, carelessness,

recklessness, strict liability and/or other liability producing conduct, Maritato was forced to suffer

serious, disabling, and permanent injuries and emotional distress, the full extent of which has yet

to be determined. Maritato has in the past and is reasonably likely to require medicines, medical

care and treatment. Maritato has in the past and may in the future continue to be compelled to

expend monies and incur further obligations for such medical care and treatment. Maritato has in

the past and may in the future continue to suffer agonizing aches, pains, and psychological and

emotional anguish. Maritato has in the past and may in the future continue to be disabled from

performing his usual duties, occupations, and avocations, all to Maritato’s great loss and detriment.

The incident has resulted in substantial physical harm and related trauma to Maritato, who has

received substantial and ongoing treatments and medicines.

289. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, carelessness,

recklessness, strict liability and/or other liability producing conduct, Parks was forced to suffer

serious, disabling, and permanent emotional distress, the full extent of which has yet to be

determined. Parks has in the past and is reasonably likely to require medicines, medical care and

treatment. Parks has in the past and may in the future continue to be compelled to expend monies

and incur further obligations for such medical care and treatment. Parks has in the past and may in

the future continue to suffer psychological and emotional anguish. Parks has in the past and may

in the future continue to be disabled from performing his usual duties, occupations, and avocations,

all to Parks’s great loss and detriment.

Michael Parker

290. Prior to November 2, 2021, Parker had undergone extensive firearms training as

a gun owner.

43
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 44 of 143

291. Prior to November 2, 2021, Parker purchased a P320 for personal use.

292. On November 2, 2021, Parker was removing his holstered P320 from his pocket.

293. On that date, Parker’s P320 suddenly and unexpectedly discharged.

294. Parker never touched the P320’s trigger and did not intend to fire the gun.

295. The bullet struck Parker in his right thigh, causing substantial injury, maceration

of tissue, blood loss, and nerve damage, along with severe emotional trauma.

296. While the full extent of the physical damage to Parker’s leg is not yet known, he

has had and it is likely that he will have trouble running, sitting, or standing as he had before the

incident, and will likely never be able to return to his pre-incident form as a result of diminished

physical capacity.

297. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, carelessness,

recklessness, strict liability and/or other liability producing conduct, Parker was forced to suffer

serious, disabling, and permanent injuries and emotional distress, the full extent of which has yet

to be determined. Parker has in the past and is reasonably likely to require medicines, medical

care and treatment. Parker has in the past and may in the future continue to be compelled to expend

monies and incur further obligations for such medical care and treatment. Parker has in the past

and may in the future continue to suffer agonizing aches, pains, and psychological and emotional

anguish. Parker has in the past and may in the future continue to be disabled from performing his

usual duties, occupations, and avocations, all to Parker’s great loss and detriment. The incident has

resulted in substantial physical harm and related trauma to Parker, who has received substantial

and ongoing treatments and medicines.

44
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 45 of 143

James Scoppa

298. Prior to November 29, 2021, James Scoppa had undergone extensive firearms

training while serving as a detective in the Atlantic County County Prosecutor’s Office.

299. Prior to November 29, 2021, Scoppa was issued a P320 by the Atlantic County

Prosecutor’s Office.

300. On November 29, 2021, Scoppa placed his holstered P320 in the center console

of his vehicle.

301. On that date, Scoppa’s P320 suddenly and unexpectedly discharged from within

its holster.

302. Scoppa never touched the P320’s trigger and did not intend to fire the gun.

303. The bullet struck the inside of Scoppa’s vehicle and caused Scoppa to sustain

persistent tinnitus along with severe emotional trauma.

304. While the full extent of the physical damage to Scoppa is not yet known, he has

had and it is likely that he will have trouble hearing as he had before the incident, and will likely

never be able to return to his pre-incident form as a result of diminished physical capacity.

305. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, carelessness,

recklessness, strict liability and/or other liability producing conduct, Scoppa was forced to suffer

serious, disabling, and permanent injuries and emotional distress, the full extent of which has yet

to be determined. Scoppa has in the past and is reasonably likely to require medicines, medical

care and treatment. Scoppa has in the past and may in the future continue to be compelled to

expend monies and incur further obligations for such medical care and treatment. Scoppa has in

the past and may in the future continue to suffer agonizing aches, pains, and psychological and

emotional anguish. Scoppa has in the past and may in the future continue to be disabled from

45
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 46 of 143

performing his usual duties, occupations, and avocations, all to Scoppa’s great loss and detriment.

The incident has resulted in substantial physical harm and related trauma to Scoppa, who has

received substantial and ongoing treatments and medicines.

Jerry Wyche

306. Prior to November 9, 2020, Jerry Wyche had undergone extensive firearms

training while serving in the Tampa Police Department.

307. Prior to November 9, 2020, Wyche was issued a P320 by the Tampa Police

Department.

308. On November 9, 2020, Wyche was sitting in a parked police car with the P320 in

his holster.

309. On that date, as Wyche tried to get up out of the parked car, Wyche’s P320

suddenly and unexpectedly discharged from within its holster.

310. Wyche’s hands were on the steering wheel, he never touched the P320’s trigger

and did not intend to fire the gun.

311. As a result of the unexpected discharge of the P320, a piece of Wyche’s holster

was broken, which led to severe lacerations to Wyche’s thigh.

312. While the full extent of the physical damage and emotional damage to Wyche is

not yet known, he has had, and it is likely that he will have permanent scarring and is suffering

from severe emotional issues.

313. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, carelessness,

recklessness, strict liability and/or other liability producing conduct, Wyche was forced to suffer

serious, and permanent injuries and emotional distress, the full extent of which has yet to be

determined. Wyche has in the past and is reasonably likely to require medicines, medical care and

46
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 47 of 143

treatment. Wyche has in the past and may in the future continue to be compelled to expend monies

and incur further obligations for such medical care and treatment. Wyche has in the past and may

in the future continue to suffer psychological and emotional anguish. Wyche has in the past and

may in the future continue to be disabled from performing his usual duties, occupations, and

avocations, all to Wyche’s great loss and detriment. The incident has resulted in substantial

emotional harm and related trauma to Wyche.

COUNT I – NEGLIGENCE
FERNANDO ARMENDARIZ V. SIG SAUER

314. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

315. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Armendariz the duty to design the P320

weapon in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to prevent it from firing

without a user trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of commerce.

316. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Armendariz the duty to manufacture,

assemble, inspect and/or test its P320s in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care,

so as to prevent it from firing without a trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the

stream of commerce.

317. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed a duty to unambiguously warn consumers

and/or intended users of the P320, including Armendariz, of known or suspected defects that

rendered the gun unreasonably dangerous to handle or use. Upon information and belief, Sig Sauer

knew or had reason to know that the P320 posed an unreasonable risk of harm by virtue of informal

and formal claims arising from substantially similar incidents, internal testing and research,

industry publications and research, and other sources of information to be developed in discovery.

47
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 48 of 143

318. Sig Sauer breached the above-cited duties in various ways, including but not limited

to, one or more of the following negligent acts:

i. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s firing and striker assembly to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

ii. By failing to use due care in designing the P320 failing to

incorporate a manual external safety, tabbed trigger safety,
or grip safety to prevent unintended discharges;

iii. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s internal components, including its sear, and by
omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

iv. By failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG

SAUER had done in the past with other defective products;

v. By failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to

discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably
dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to
discharge un-commanded as described above;

vi. By negligently failing to unambiguously warn purchasers

and end users of the gun, including Aremedariz, of said
defective, hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions
relating to its design and manufacture, which it knew or
should have known through the exercise of ordinary care;

vii. By failing to discover the defective, hazardous and

unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s
propensity to discharge un-commanded while in the
possession of SIG SAUER, and during which times
employees, servants or agents of SIG SAUER had an
opportunity to inspect, service and work on the gun;

viii. By negligently failing to place a warning about mere

“vibration” of the gun in a conspicuous manner, such as on
its case, which could be easily understood by a consumer,
instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of the
user manual for the gun after several incidents of un-
commanded discharges;

48
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 49 of 143

ix. By including a defective and improper holster in the original

packaging with the gun;

x. By misrepresenting the dangers and hazards posed by the

gun;

xi. By failing to design a firearm that would be safe for all users
to operate under ordinary circumstances;

xii. By negligently misrepresenting that the P320 is safe when

carried with a round in the chamber;

xiii. By failing to incorporate safeties which were standard

among all of the P320s competitors;

xiv. Other negligent acts and omissions to be developed in the

course of discovery.

319. Sig Sauer knew, or should have known, that exposing users to the dangerous and

defective and hazardous conditions existing in the gun would or could give rise to serious bodily

injuries to such users, up to and including death.

320. The gun’s defective condition was not visible and Armendariz was not capable of

realizing the dangerous condition and could not have discovered the dangerous condition even

upon performing a reasonable inspection of the same.

321. Sig Sauer’s negligence, as alleged in this Count, directly and proximately

Armendariz the April 1, 2021 unintended discharge and Armendariz’s injuries resulting from the

accident.

322. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence set forth in this Count,

Armendariz suffered severe physical injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity

for the enjoyment of life, physical deformity and handicap and embarrassment associated with the

same, loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, attendant care and life care expenses

49
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 50 of 143

for his care and treatment. These injuries are either permanent or continuing in their nature and

Armendariz will suffer such losses and impairments in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against the Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’

fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT II - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

FERNANDO ARMENDARIZ V. SIG SAUER

323. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-allege all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

324. Sig Sauer, by and through its agents, servants, workers, contractors, designers,

assemblers, manufacturers, sellers, suppliers and/or distributors, is strictly liable under §402(A) of

the Restatement (Second) of Torts because:

a. Sig Sauer is engaged in the regular business of designing, assembling,

manufacturing, selling, supplying, distributing, and/or placing into the stream of
commerce firearms, including the P320 that injured Plaintiff;

b. The product involved in the subject incident was marketed and/or placed in the general
stream of commerce by Sig Sauer;

c. The product was expected to and did reach users without substantial change in the
condition in which it was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied,
distributed and/or placed into the stream of commerce;

d. The product was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed,

and/or placed into the stream of commerce in the defective condition for the reasons
set forth above.

325. The P320 was in a defective condition as a reasonable person would conclude that

the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the P320 outweighed the burden or costs of

taking precautions.

50
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 51 of 143

326. Sig Sauer breached its duties, by and through their agents, servants, workers and/or

employees, and was jointly and severally careless, negligent, grossly negligent and/or reckless in

the performance of its obligations.

327. The defective condition of the P320 caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

328. Sig Sauer is therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT III – VIOLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

FERNANDO ARMENDARIZ V. SIG SAUER

329. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

330. By its actions, described in detail in this Complaint, Sig Sauer has engaged in unfair

and deceptive acts in violation of sections 358-A:2(V) and (VII) of New Hampshire’s Consumer

Protection Act.

331. Sig Sauer’s actions have been willing and knowing, and the direct and proximate

cause of substantial damages to Armendariz, entitled Armendariz to mandatory doubling and

discretionary trebling of his actual damages, as well as his reasonable attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

51
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 52 of 143

COUNT IV – NEGLIGENCE
MATTHEW BREEDON V. SIG SAUER

332. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

333. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Breedon the duty to design the P320 weapon

in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to prevent it from firing without

a user trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of commerce.

334. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Breedon the duty to manufacture, assemble,

inspect and/or test its P320s in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to

prevent it from firing without a trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of

commerce.

335. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed a duty to unambiguously warn consumers

and/or intended users of the P320, including Breedon, of known or suspected defects that rendered

the gun unreasonably dangerous to handle or use. Upon information and belief, Sig Sauer knew or

had reason to know that the P320 posed an unreasonable risk of harm by virtue of informal and

formal claims arising from substantially similar incidents, internal testing and research, industry

publications and research, and other sources of information to be developed in discovery.

336. Sig Sauer breached the above-cited duties in various ways, including but not limited

to, one or more of the following negligent acts:

i. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s firing and striker assembly to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

ii. By failing to use due care in designing the P320 failing to

incorporate a manual external safety, tabbed trigger safety,
or grip safety to prevent unintended discharges;

52
Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 53 of 143

iii. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s internal components, including its sear, and by
omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

iv. By failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG

SAUER had done in the past with other defective products;

v. By failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to

discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably
dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to
discharge un-commanded as described above;

vi. By negligently failing to unambiguously warn purchasers

and end users of the gun, including Breedon, of said
defective, hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions
relating to its design and manufacture, which it knew or
should have known through the exercise of ordinary care;

vii. By failing to discover the defective, hazardous and

unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s
propensity to discharge un-commanded while in the
possession of SIG SAUER, and during which times
employees, servants or agents of SIG SAUER had an
opportunity to inspect, service and work on the gun;

viii. By negligently failing to place a warning about mere

“vibration” of the gun in a conspicuous manner, such as on
its case, which could be easily understood by a consumer,
instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of the
user manual for the gun after several incidents of un-
commanded discharges;

ix. By including a defective and improper holster in the original

packaging with the gun;

x. By misrepresenting the dangers and hazards posed by the

gun;

xi. By failing to design a firearm that would be safe for all users
to operate under ordinary circumstances;

xii. By negligently misrepresenting that the P320 is safe when

carried with a round in the chamber;

53
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 54 of 143

xiii. By failing to incorporate safeties which were standard

among all of the P320s competitors;

xiv. Other negligent acts and omissions to be developed in the

course of discovery.

337. Sig Sauer knew, or should have known, that exposing users to the dangerous and

defective and hazardous conditions existing in the gun would or could give rise to serious bodily

injuries to such users, up to and including death.

338. The gun’s defective condition was not visible and Breedon was not capable of

realizing the dangerous condition and could not have discovered the dangerous condition even

upon performing a reasonable inspection of the same.

339. Sig Sauer’s negligence, as alleged in this Count, directly and proximately caused

the April 4, 2022 unintended discharge and Breedon’s injuries resulting from the accident.

340. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence set forth in this Count, Breedon

suffered severe physical injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the

enjoyment of life, physical deformity and handicap and embarrassment associated with the same,

loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, attendant care and life care expenses for

his care and treatment. These injuries are either permanent or continuing in their nature and

Breedon will suffer such losses and impairments in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against the Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’

fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT V - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

MATTHEW BREEDON V. SIG SAUER

341. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-allege all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

54
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 55 of 143

342. Sig Sauer, by and through its agents, servants, workers, contractors, designers,

assemblers, manufacturers, sellers, suppliers and/or distributors, is strictly liable under §402(A) of

the Restatement (Second) of Torts because:

a. Sig Sauer is engaged in the regular business of designing, assembling,

manufacturing, selling, supplying, distributing, and/or placing into the stream of
commerce firearms, including the P320 that injured Plaintiff;

b. The product involved in the subject incident was marketed and/or placed in the general
stream of commerce by Sig Sauer;

c. The product was expected to and did reach users without substantial change in the
condition in which it was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied,
distributed and/or placed into the stream of commerce;

d. The product was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed,

and/or placed into the stream of commerce in the defective condition for the reasons
set forth above.

343. The P320 was in a defective condition as a reasonable person would conclude that

the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the P320 outweighed the burden or costs of

taking precautions.

344. Sig Sauer breached its duties, by and through their agents, servants, workers and/or

employees, and was jointly and severally careless, negligent, grossly negligent and/or reckless in

the performance of its obligations.

345. The defective condition of the P320 caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

346. Sig Sauer is therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

55
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 56 of 143

COUNT VI – VIOLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

MATTHEW BREEDON V. SIG SAUER

347. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

348. By its actions, described in detail in this Complaint, Sig Sauer has engaged in unfair

and deceptive acts in violation of sections 358-A:2(V) and (VII) of New Hampshire’s Consumer

Protection Act.

349. Sig Sauer’s actions have been willing and knowing, and the direct and proximate

cause of substantial damages to Breedon, entitled Breedon to mandatory doubling and

discretionary trebling of his actual damages, as well as his reasonable attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT VII - NEGLIGENCE

ZACHARY BROWN V. SIG SAUER

350. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

351. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Brown the duty to design the P320 weapon

in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to prevent it from firing without

a user trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of commerce.

352. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Brown the duty to manufacture, assemble,

inspect and/or test its P320s in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to

prevent it from firing without a trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of

commerce.

56
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 57 of 143

353. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed a duty to unambiguously warn consumers

and/or intended users of the P320, including Brown, of known or suspected defects that rendered

the gun unreasonably dangerous to handle or use. Upon information and belief, Sig Sauer knew or

had reason to know that the P320 posed an unreasonable risk of harm by virtue of informal and

formal claims arising from substantially similar incidents, internal testing and research, industry

publications and research, and other sources of information to be developed in discovery.

354. Sig Sauer breached the above-cited duties in various ways, including but not limited

to, one or more of the following negligent acts:

i. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s firing and striker assembly to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

ii. By failing to use due care in designing the P320 failing to

incorporate a manual external safety, tabbed trigger safety,
or grip safety to prevent unintended discharges;

iii. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s internal components, including its sear, and by
omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

iv. By failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG

SAUER had done in the past with other defective products;

v. By failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to

discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably
dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to
discharge un-commanded as described above;

vi. By negligently failing to unambiguously warn purchasers

and end users of the gun, including Brown, of said defective,
hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions relating
to its design and manufacture, which it knew or should have
known through the exercise of ordinary care;

vii. By failing to discover the defective, hazardous and

unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s
propensity to discharge un-commanded while in the

57
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 58 of 143

possession of SIG SAUER, and during which times

employees, servants or agents of SIG SAUER had an
opportunity to inspect, service and work on the gun;

viii. By negligently failing to place a warning about mere

“vibration” of the gun in a conspicuous manner, such as on
its case, which could be easily understood by a consumer,
instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of the
user manual for the gun after several incidents of un-
commanded discharges;

ix. By including a defective and improper holster in the original

packaging with the gun;

x. By misrepresenting the dangers and hazards posed by the

gun;

xi. By failing to design a firearm that would be safe for all users
to operate under ordinary circumstances;

xii. By negligently misrepresenting that the P320 is safe when

carried with a round in the chamber;

xiii. By failing to incorporate safeties which were standard

among all of the P320s competitors;

xiv. Other negligent acts and omissions to be developed in the

course of discovery;

355. Sig Sauer knew, or should have known, that exposing users to the dangerous and

defective and hazardous conditions existing in the gun would or could give rise to serious bodily

injuries to such users, up to and including death.

356. The gun’s defective condition was not visible and Brown was not capable of

realizing the dangerous condition and could not have discovered the dangerous condition even

upon performing a reasonable inspection of the same.

357. Sig Sauer’s negligence, as alleged in this Count, directly and proximately caused

the January 15, 2022, unintended discharge and Brown’s injuries resulting from the accident.

58
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 59 of 143

358. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence set forth in this Count, Brown

suffered severe physical injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the

enjoyment of life, physical deformity and handicap and embarrassment associated with the same,

loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, attendant care and life care expenses for

his care and treatment. These injuries are either permanent or continuing in their nature and Brown

will suffer such losses and impairments in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against the Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’

fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT VIII - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

ZACHARY BROWN V. SIG SAUER

359. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-allege all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

360. Sig Sauer, by and through its agents, servants, workers, contractors, designers,

assemblers, manufacturers, sellers, suppliers and/or distributors, is strictly liable under §402(A) of

the Restatement (Second) of Torts because:

a. Sig Sauer is engaged in the regular business of designing, assembling,

manufacturing, selling, supplying, distributing, and/or placing into the stream of
commerce firearms, including the P320 that injured Plaintiff;

b. The product involved in the subject incident was marketed and/or placed in the general
stream of commerce by Sig Sauer;

c. The product was expected to and did reach users without substantial change in the
condition in which it was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied,
distributed and/or placed into the stream of commerce;

d. The product was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed,

and/or placed into the stream of commerce in the defective condition for the reasons
set forth above.

59
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 60 of 143

361. The P320 was in a defective condition as a reasonable person would conclude that

the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the P320 outweighed the burden or costs of

taking precautions.

362. Sig Sauer breached its duties, by and through their agents, servants, workers and/or

employees, and was jointly and severally careless, negligent, grossly negligent and/or reckless in

the performance of its obligations.

363. The defective condition of the P320 caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

364. Sig Sauer is therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT IX – VIOLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

ZACHARY BROWN V. SIG SAUER

365. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

366. By its actions, described in detail in this Complaint, Sig Sauer has engaged in unfair

and deceptive acts in violation of sections 358-A:2(V) and (VII) of New Hampshire’s Consumer

Protection Act.

367. Sig Sauer’s actions have been willing and knowing, and the direct and proximate

cause of substantial damages to Brown entitled Brown to mandatory doubling and discretionary

trebling of his actual damages, as well as his reasonable attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

60
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 61 of 143

COUNT X – NEGLIGENCE
CATHERINE CHARGUALAF V. SIG SAUER

368. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

369. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Chargualaf the duty to design the P320

weapon in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to prevent it from firing

without a user trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of commerce.

370. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Chargualaf the duty to manufacture,

assemble, inspect and/or test its P320s in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care,

so as to prevent it from firing without a trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the

stream of commerce.

371. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed a duty to unambiguously warn consumers

and/or intended users of the P320, including Chargualaf, of known or suspected defects that

rendered the gun unreasonably dangerous to handle or use. Upon information and belief, Sig Sauer

knew or had reason to know that the P320 posed an unreasonable risk of harm by virtue of informal

and formal claims arising from substantially similar incidents, internal testing and research,

industry publications and research, and other sources of information to be developed in discovery.

372. Sig Sauer breached the above-cited duties in various ways, including but not limited

to, one or more of the following negligent acts:

i. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s firing and striker assembly to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

ii. By failing to use due care in designing the P320 failing to

incorporate a manual external safety, tabbed trigger safety,
or grip safety to prevent unintended discharges;

61
Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 62 of 143

iii. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s internal components, including its sear, and by
omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

iv. By failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG

SAUER had done in the past with other defective products;

v. By failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to

discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably
dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to
discharge un-commanded as described above;

vi. By negligently failing to unambiguously warn purchasers

and end users of the gun, including Chargualaf, of said
defective, hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions
relating to its design and manufacture, which it knew or
should have known through the exercise of ordinary care;

vii. By failing to discover the defective, hazardous and

unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s
propensity to discharge un-commanded while in the
possession of SIG SAUER, and during which times
employees, servants or agents of SIG SAUER had an
opportunity to inspect, service and work on the gun;

viii. By negligently failing to place a warning about mere

“vibration” of the gun in a conspicuous manner, such as on
its case, which could be easily understood by a consumer,
instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of the
user manual for the gun after several incidents of un-
commanded discharges;

ix. By including a defective and improper holster in the original

packaging with the gun;

x. By misrepresenting the dangers and hazards posed by the

gun;

xi. By failing to design a firearm that would be safe for all users
to operate under ordinary circumstances;

xii. By negligently misrepresenting that the P320 is safe when

carried with a round in the chamber;

62
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 63 of 143

xiii. By failing to incorporate safeties which were standard

among all of the P320s competitors;

xiv. Other negligent acts and omissions to be developed in the

course of discovery.

373. Sig Sauer knew, or should have known, that exposing users to the dangerous and

defective and hazardous conditions existing in the gun would or could give rise to serious bodily

injuries to such users, up to and including death.

374. The gun’s defective condition was not visible and Chargualaf was not capable of

realizing the dangerous condition and could not have discovered the dangerous condition even

upon performing a reasonable inspection of the same.

375. Sig Sauer’s negligence, as alleged in this Count, directly and proximately caused

the December 8, 2020 unintended discharge and Chargualaf’s injuries resulting from the accident.

376. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence set forth in this Count, Chargualaf

suffered severe physical injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the

enjoyment of life, physical deformity and handicap and embarrassment associated with the same,

loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, attendant care and life care expenses for

her care and treatment. These injuries are either permanent or continuing in their nature and

Chargualaf will suffer such losses and impairments in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against the Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’

fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XI - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

CATHERINE CHARGUALAF V. SIG SAUER

377. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-allege all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

63
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 64 of 143

378. Sig Sauer, by and through its agents, servants, workers, contractors, designers,

assemblers, manufacturers, sellers, suppliers and/or distributors, is strictly liable under §402(A) of

the Restatement (Second) of Torts because:

a. Sig Sauer is engaged in the regular business of designing, assembling,

manufacturing, selling, supplying, distributing, and/or placing into the stream of
commerce firearms, including the P320 that injured Plaintiff;

b. The product involved in the subject incident was marketed and/or placed in the general
stream of commerce by Sig Sauer;

c. The product was expected to and did reach users without substantial change in the
condition in which it was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied,
distributed and/or placed into the stream of commerce;

d. The product was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed,

and/or placed into the stream of commerce in the defective condition for the reasons
set forth above.

379. The P320 was in a defective condition as a reasonable person would conclude that

the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the P320 outweighed the burden or costs of

taking precautions.

380. Sig Sauer breached its duties, by and through their agents, servants, workers and/or

employees, and was jointly and severally careless, negligent, grossly negligent and/or reckless in

the performance of its obligations.

381. The defective condition of the P320 caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

382. Sig Sauer is therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

64
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 65 of 143

COUNT XII – VIOLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

CATHERINE CHARGUALAF V. SIG SAUER

383. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

384. By its actions, described in detail in this Complaint, Sig Sauer has engaged in unfair

and deceptive acts in violation of sections 358-A:2(V) and (VII) of New Hampshire’s Consumer

Protection Act.

385. Sig Sauer’s actions have been willing and knowing, and the direct and proximate

cause of substantial damages to Chargualaf, entitled Chargualaf to mandatory doubling and

discretionary trebling of her actual damages, as well as her reasonable attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XIII – NEGLIGENCE

WILLIAM CLEGG V. SIG SAUER

386. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

387. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Clegg the duty to design the P320 weapon in

such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to prevent it from firing without a

user trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of commerce.

388. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Clegg the duty to manufacture, assemble,

inspect and/or test its P320s in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to

prevent it from firing without a trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of

commerce.

65
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 66 of 143

389. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed a duty to unambiguously warn consumers

and/or intended users of the P320, including Clegg, of known or suspected defects that rendered

the gun unreasonably dangerous to handle or use. Upon information and belief, Sig Sauer knew or

had reason to know that the P320 posed an unreasonable risk of harm by virtue of informal and

formal claims arising from substantially similar incidents, internal testing and research, industry

publications and research, and other sources of information to be developed in discovery.

390. Sig Sauer breached the above-cited duties in various ways, including but not limited

to, one or more of the following negligent acts:

i. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s firing and striker assembly to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

ii. By failing to use due care in designing the P320 failing to

incorporate a manual external safety, tabbed trigger safety,
or grip safety to prevent unintended discharges;

iii. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s internal components, including its sear, and by
omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

iv. By failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG

SAUER had done in the past with other defective products;

v. By failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to

discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably
dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to
discharge un-commanded as described above;

vi. By negligently failing to unambiguously warn purchasers

and end users of the gun, including Clegg, of said defective,
hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions relating
to its design and manufacture, which it knew or should have
known through the exercise of ordinary care;

vii. By failing to discover the defective, hazardous and

unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s
propensity to discharge un-commanded while in the

66
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 67 of 143

possession of SIG SAUER, and during which times

employees, servants or agents of SIG SAUER had an
opportunity to inspect, service and work on the gun;

viii. By negligently failing to place a warning about mere

“vibration” of the gun in a conspicuous manner, such as on
its case, which could be easily understood by a consumer,
instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of the
user manual for the gun after several incidents of un-
commanded discharges;

ix. By including a defective and improper holster in the original

packaging with the gun;

x. By misrepresenting the dangers and hazards posed by the

gun;

xi. By failing to design a firearm that would be safe for all users
to operate under ordinary circumstances;

xii. By negligently misrepresenting that the P320 is safe when

carried with a round in the chamber;

xiii. By failing to incorporate safeties which were standard

among all of the P320s competitors;

xiv. Other negligent acts and omissions to be developed in the

course of discovery.

391. Sig Sauer knew, or should have known, that exposing users to the dangerous and

defective and hazardous conditions existing in the gun would or could give rise to serious bodily

injuries to such users, up to and including death.

392. The gun’s defective condition was not visible and Clegg was not capable of

realizing the dangerous condition and could not have discovered the dangerous condition even

upon performing a reasonable inspection of the same.

393. Sig Sauer’s negligence, as alleged in this Count, directly and proximately caused

the November 7, 2022 unintended discharge and Clegg injuries resulting from the accident.

67
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 68 of 143

394. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence set forth in this Count, Clegg

suffered severe physical injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the

enjoyment of life, physical deformity and handicap and embarrassment associated with the same,

loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, attendant care and life care expenses for

his care and treatment. These injuries are either permanent or continuing in their nature and Clegg

will suffer such losses and impairments in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against the Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’

fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XIV - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

WILLIAM CLEGG V. SIG SAUER

395. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-allege all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

396. Sig Sauer, by and through its agents, servants, workers, contractors, designers,

assemblers, manufacturers, sellers, suppliers and/or distributors, is strictly liable under §402(A) of

the Restatement (Second) of Torts because:

e. Sig Sauer is engaged in the regular business of designing, assembling,

manufacturing, selling, supplying, distributing, and/or placing into the stream of
commerce firearms, including the P320 that injured Plaintiff;

f. The product involved in the subject incident was marketed and/or placed in the general
stream of commerce by Sig Sauer;

g. The product was expected to and did reach users without substantial change in the
condition in which it was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied,
distributed and/or placed into the stream of commerce;

h. The product was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed,

and/or placed into the stream of commerce in the defective condition for the reasons
set forth above.

68
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 69 of 143

397. The P320 was in a defective condition as a reasonable person would conclude that

the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the P320 outweighed the burden or costs of

taking precautions.

398. Sig Sauer breached its duties, by and through their agents, servants, workers and/or

employees, and was jointly and severally careless, negligent, grossly negligent and/or reckless in

the performance of its obligations.

399. The defective condition of the P320 caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

400. Sig Sauer is therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XV – VIOLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

WILLIAM CLEGG V. SIG SAUER

401. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

402. By its actions, described in detail in this Complaint, Sig Sauer has engaged in unfair

and deceptive acts in violation of sections 358-A:2(V) and (VII) of New Hampshire’s Consumer

Protection Act.

403. Sig Sauer’s actions have been willing and knowing, and the direct and proximate

cause of substantial damages to Clegg, entitled Clegg to mandatory doubling and discretionary

trebling of his actual damages, as well as his reasonable attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

69
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 70 of 143

COUNT XVI – NEGLIGENCE

DIONICIO DELGADO V. SIG SAUER

404. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Delgado the duty to design the P320 weapon

in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to prevent it from firing without

a user trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of commerce.

405. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Delgado the duty to manufacture, assemble,

inspect and/or test its P320s in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to

prevent it from firing without a trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of

commerce.

406. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed a duty to unambiguously warn consumers

and/or intended users of the P320, including Delgado, of known or suspected defects that rendered

the gun unreasonably dangerous to handle or use. Upon information and belief, Sig Sauer knew or

had reason to know that the P320 posed an unreasonable risk of harm by virtue of informal and

formal claims arising from substantially similar incidents, internal testing and research, industry

publications and research, and other sources of information to be developed in discovery.

407. Sig Sauer breached the above-cited duties in various ways, including but not limited

to, one or more of the following negligent acts:

i. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s firing and striker assembly to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

ii. By failing to use due care in designing the P320 failing to

incorporate a manual external safety, tabbed trigger safety,
or grip safety to prevent unintended discharges;

iii. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s internal components, including its sear, and by
omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

70
Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 71 of 143

iv. By failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG

SAUER had done in the past with other defective products;

v. By failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to

discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably
dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to
discharge un-commanded as described above;

vi. By negligently failing to unambiguously warn purchasers

and end users of the gun, including Delgado, of said
defective, hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions
relating to its design and manufacture, which it knew or
should have known through the exercise of ordinary care;

vii. By failing to discover the defective, hazardous and

unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s
propensity to discharge un-commanded while in the
possession of SIG SAUER, and during which times
employees, servants or agents of SIG SAUER had an
opportunity to inspect, service and work on the gun;

viii. By negligently failing to place a warning about mere

“vibration” of the gun in a conspicuous manner, such as on
its case, which could be easily understood by a consumer,
instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of the
user manual for the gun after several incidents of un-
commanded discharges;

ix. By including a defective and improper holster in the original

packaging with the gun;

x. By misrepresenting the dangers and hazards posed by the

gun;

xi. By failing to design a firearm that would be safe for all users
to operate under ordinary circumstances;

xii. By negligently misrepresenting that the P320 is safe when

carried with a round in the chamber.

xiii. By failing to incorporate safeties which were standard

among all of the P320s competitors.

xiv. Other negligent acts and omissions to be developed in the

course of discovery.

71
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 72 of 143

408. Sig Sauer knew, or should have known, that exposing users to the dangerous and

defective and hazardous conditions existing in the gun would or could give rise to serious bodily

injuries to such users, up to and including death.

409. The gun’s defective condition was not visible and Delgado was not capable of

realizing the dangerous condition and could not have discovered the dangerous condition even

upon performing a reasonable inspection of the same.

410. Sig Sauer’s negligence, as alleged in this Count, directly and proximately caused

the February 12, 2022 unintended discharge and Delgado’s injuries resulting from the accident.

411. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence set forth in this Count, Delgado

suffered severe physical injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the

enjoyment of life, physical deformity and handicap and embarrassment associated with the same,

loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, attendant care and life care expenses for

his care and treatment. These injuries are either permanent or continuing in their nature and

Delgado will suffer such losses and impairments in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against the Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’

fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XVII - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

DIONICIO DELGADO V. SIG SAUER

412. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-allege all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

413. Sig Sauer, by and through its agents, servants, workers, contractors, designers,

assemblers, manufacturers, sellers, suppliers and/or distributors, is strictly liable under §402(A) of

the Restatement (Second) of Torts because:

72
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 73 of 143

a. Sig Sauer is engaged in the regular business of designing, assembling,

manufacturing, selling, supplying, distributing, and/or placing into the stream of
commerce firearms, including the P320 that injured Plaintiff;

b. The product involved in the subject incident was marketed and/or placed in the general
stream of commerce by Sig Sauer;

c. The product was expected to and did reach users without substantial change in the
condition in which it was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied,
distributed and/or placed into the stream of commerce;

d. The product was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed,

and/or placed into the stream of commerce in the defective condition for the reasons
set forth above.

414. The P320 was in a defective condition as a reasonable person would conclude that

the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the P320 outweighed the burden or costs of

taking precautions.

415. Sig Sauer breached its duties, by and through their agents, servants, workers and/or

employees, and was jointly and severally careless, negligent, grossly negligent and/or reckless in

the performance of its obligations.

416. The defective condition of the P320 caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

417. Sig Sauer is therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XVIII – VIOLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSUMER PROTECTION

ACT
DIONICIO DELGADO V. SIG SAUER

418. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

73
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 74 of 143

419. By its actions, described in detail in this Complaint, Sig Sauer has engaged in unfair

and deceptive acts in violation of sections 358-A:2(V) and (VII) of New Hampshire’s Consumer

Protection Act.

420. Sig Sauer’s actions have been willing and knowing, and the direct and proximate

cause of substantial damages to Delgado, entitled Delgado to mandatory doubling and

discretionary trebling of his actual damages, as well as his reasonable attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XIX – NEGLIGENCE

MARY DOFFENY V. SIG SAUER

421. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

422. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Doffeny the duty to design the P320 weapon

in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to prevent it from firing without

a user trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of commerce.

423. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Doffeny the duty to manufacture, assemble,

inspect and/or test its P320s in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to

prevent it from firing without a trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of

commerce.

424. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed a duty to unambiguously warn consumers

and/or intended users of the P320, including Doffeny, of known or suspected defects that rendered

the gun unreasonably dangerous to handle or use. Upon information and belief, Sig Sauer knew or

had reason to know that the P320 posed an unreasonable risk of harm by virtue of informal and

74
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 75 of 143

formal claims arising from substantially similar incidents, internal testing and research, industry

publications and research, and other sources of information to be developed in discovery.

425. Sig Sauer breached the above-cited duties in various ways, including but not limited

to, one or more of the following negligent acts:

i. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s firing and striker assembly to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

ii. By failing to use due care in designing the P320 failing to

incorporate a manual external safety, tabbed trigger safety,
or grip safety to prevent unintended discharges;

iii. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s internal components, including its sear, and by
omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

iv. By failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG

SAUER had done in the past with other defective products;

v. By failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to

discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably
dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to
discharge un-commanded as described above;

vi. By negligently failing to unambiguously warn purchasers

and end users of the gun, including Doffeny, of said
defective, hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions
relating to its design and manufacture, which it knew or
should have known through the exercise of ordinary care;

vii. By failing to discover the defective, hazardous and

unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s
propensity to discharge un-commanded while in the
possession of SIG SAUER, and during which times
employees, servants or agents of SIG SAUER had an
opportunity to inspect, service and work on the gun;

viii. By negligently failing to place a warning about mere

“vibration” of the gun in a conspicuous manner, such as on
its case, which could be easily understood by a consumer,
instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of the

75
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 76 of 143

user manual for the gun after several incidents of un-

commanded discharges;

ix. By including a defective and improper holster in the original

packaging with the gun;

x. By misrepresenting the dangers and hazards posed by the

gun;

xi. By failing to design a firearm that would be safe for all users
to operate under ordinary circumstances;

xii. By negligently misrepresenting that the P320 is safe when

carried with a round in the chamber;

xiii. By failing to incorporate safeties which were standard

among all of the P320s competitors;

xiv. Other negligent acts and omissions to be developed in the

course of discovery.

426. Sig Sauer knew, or should have known, that exposing users to the dangerous and

defective and hazardous conditions existing in the gun would or could give rise to serious bodily

injuries to such users, up to and including death.

427. The gun’s defective condition was not visible and Doffeny was not capable of

realizing the dangerous condition and could not have discovered the dangerous condition even

upon performing a reasonable inspection of the same.

428. Sig Sauer’s negligence, as alleged in this Count, directly and proximately caused

the December 5, 2021 unintended discharge and Doffeny’s injuries resulting from the accident.

429. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence set forth in this Count, Doffeny

suffered mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the enjoyment of life, loss of

earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, attendant care and life care expenses for her care

and treatment. These emotional injuries are either permanent or continuing in their nature and

Doffeny will suffer such losses and impairments in the future.

76
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 77 of 143

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against the Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’

fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XX - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

MARY DOFFENY V. SIG SAUER

430. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-allege all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

431. Sig Sauer, by and through its agents, servants, workers, contractors, designers,

assemblers, manufacturers, sellers, suppliers and/or distributors, is strictly liable under §402(A) of

the Restatement (Second) of Torts because:

a. Sig Sauer is engaged in the regular business of designing, assembling,

manufacturing, selling, supplying, distributing, and/or placing into the stream of
commerce firearms, including the P320 that injured Plaintiff;

b. The product involved in the subject incident was marketed and/or placed in the general
stream of commerce by Sig Sauer;

c. The product was expected to and did reach users without substantial change in the
condition in which it was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied,
distributed and/or placed into the stream of commerce;

d. The product was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed,

and/or placed into the stream of commerce in the defective condition for the reasons
set forth above.

432. The P320 was in a defective condition as a reasonable person would conclude that

the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the P320 outweighed the burden or costs of

taking precautions.

433. Sig Sauer breached its duties, by and through their agents, servants, workers and/or

employees, and was jointly and severally careless, negligent, grossly negligent and/or reckless in

the performance of its obligations.

77
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 78 of 143

434. The defective condition of the P320 caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

435. Sig Sauer is therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XXI – VIOLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
MARY DOFFENY V. SIG SAUER

436. Plaintiff adopts all preceding Paragraphs as if fully incorporated herein.

437. By its actions, described in detail in this Complaint, Sig Sauer has engaged in unfair

and deceptive acts in violation of sections 358-A:2(V) and (VII) of New Hampshire’s Consumer

Protection Act.

438. Sig Sauer’s actions have been willing and knowing, and the direct and proximate

cause of substantial damages to Doffeny, entitled Doffeny to mandatory doubling and

discretionary trebling of her actual damages, as well as her reasonable attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XXII – NEGLIGENCE

DAVID DUFF V. SIG SAUER

439. Plaintiff adopts all preceding Paragraphs as if fully incorporated herein.

440. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Duff the duty to design the P320 weapon in

such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to prevent it from firing without a

user trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of commerce.

78
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 79 of 143

441. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Duff the duty to manufacture, assemble,

inspect and/or test its P320s in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to

prevent it from firing without a trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of

commerce.

442. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed a duty to unambiguously warn consumers

and/or intended users of the P320, including Duff, of known or suspected defects that rendered the

gun unreasonably dangerous to handle or use. Upon information and belief, Sig Sauer knew or had

reason to know that the P320 posed an unreasonable risk of harm by virtue of informal and formal

claims arising from substantially similar incidents, internal testing and research, industry

publications and research, and other sources of information to be developed in discovery.

443. Sig Sauer breached the above-cited duties in various ways, including but not limited

to, one or more of the following negligent acts:

i. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s firing and striker assembly to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

ii. By failing to use due care in designing the P320 failing to

incorporate a manual external safety, tabbed trigger safety,
or grip safety to prevent unintended discharges;

iii. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s internal components, including its sear, and by
omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

iv. By failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG

SAUER had done in the past with other defective products;

v. By failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to

discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably
dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to
discharge un-commanded as described above;

79
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 80 of 143

vi. By negligently failing to unambiguously warn purchasers

and end users of the gun, including Duff, of said defective,
hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions relating
to its design and manufacture, which it knew or should have
known through the exercise of ordinary care;

vii. By failing to discover the defective, hazardous and

unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s
propensity to discharge un-commanded while in the
possession of SIG SAUER, and during which times
employees, servants or agents of SIG SAUER had an
opportunity to inspect, service and work on the gun;

viii. By negligently failing to place a warning about mere

“vibration” of the gun in a conspicuous manner, such as on
its case, which could be easily understood by a consumer,
instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of the
user manual for the gun after several incidents of un-
commanded discharges;

ix. By including a defective and improper holster in the original

packaging with the gun;

x. By misrepresenting the dangers and hazards posed by the

gun;

xi. By failing to design a firearm that would be safe for all users
to operate under ordinary circumstances;

xii. By negligently misrepresenting that the P320 is safe when

carried with a round in the chamber;

xiii. By failing to incorporate safeties which were standard

among all of the P320s competitors;

xiv. Other negligent acts and omissions to be developed in the

course of discovery.

444. Sig Sauer knew, or should have known, that exposing users to the dangerous and

defective and hazardous conditions existing in the gun would or could give rise to serious bodily

injuries to such users, up to and including death.

80
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 81 of 143

445. The gun’s defective condition was not visible and Duran was not capable of

realizing the dangerous condition and could not have discovered the dangerous condition even

upon performing a reasonable inspection of the same.

446. Sig Sauer’s negligence, as alleged in this Count, directly and proximately caused

the February 15, 2020 unintended discharge and Duff’s injuries resulting from the accident.

447. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence set forth in this Count, Duff

suffered severe physical injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the

enjoyment of life, physical deformity and handicap and embarrassment associated with the same,

loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, attendant care and life care expenses for

his care and treatment. These injuries are either permanent or continuing in their nature and Duff

will suffer such losses and impairments in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against the Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’

fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XXIII - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

DAVID DUFF V. SIG SAUER

448. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-allege all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

449. Sig Sauer, by and through its agents, servants, workers, contractors, designers,

assemblers, manufacturers, sellers, suppliers and/or distributors, is strictly liable under §402(A) of

the Restatement (Second) of Torts because:

a. Sig Sauer is engaged in the regular business of designing, assembling,

manufacturing, selling, supplying, distributing, and/or placing into the stream of
commerce firearms, including the P320 that injured Plaintiff;

81
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 82 of 143

b. The product involved in the subject incident was marketed and/or placed in the general
stream of commerce by Sig Sauer;

c. The product was expected to and did reach users without substantial change in the
condition in which it was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied,
distributed and/or placed into the stream of commerce;

d. The product was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed,

and/or placed into the stream of commerce in the defective condition for the reasons
set forth above.

450. The P320 was in a defective condition as a reasonable person would conclude that

the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the P320 outweighed the burden or costs of

taking precautions.

451. Sig Sauer breached its duties, by and through their agents, servants, workers and/or

employees, and was jointly and severally careless, negligent, grossly negligent and/or reckless in

the performance of its obligations.

452. The defective condition of the P320 caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

453. Sig Sauer is therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XXIV – VIOLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSUMER PROTECTION

ACT
DAVID DUFF V. SIG SAUER

454. Plaintiff adopts all preceding Paragraphs as if fully incorporated herein.

455. By its actions, described in detail in this Complaint, Sig Sauer has engaged in unfair

and deceptive acts in violation of sections 358-A:2(V) and (VII) of New Hampshire’s Consumer

Protection Act.

82
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 83 of 143

456. Sig Sauer’s actions have been willing and knowing, and the direct and proximate

cause of substantial damages to Duff, entitled Duff to mandatory doubling and discretionary

trebling of his actual damages, as well as his reasonable attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XXV – NEGLIGENCE

JUAN DURAN V. SIG SAUER

457. Plaintiff adopts all preceding Paragraphs as if fully incorporated herein.

458. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Duran the duty to design the P320 weapon

in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to prevent it from firing without

a user trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of commerce.

459. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Duran the duty to manufacture, assemble,

inspect and/or test its P320s in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to

prevent it from firing without a trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of

commerce.

460. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed a duty to unambiguously warn consumers

and/or intended users of the P320, including Duran, of known or suspected defects that rendered

the gun unreasonably dangerous to handle or use. Upon information and belief, Sig Sauer knew or

had reason to know that the P320 posed an unreasonable risk of harm by virtue of informal and

formal claims arising from substantially similar incidents, internal testing and research, industry

publications and research, and other sources of information to be developed in discovery.

461. Sig Sauer breached the above-cited duties in various ways, including but not limited

to, one or more of the following negligent acts:

83
Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 84 of 143

i. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s firing and striker assembly to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

ii. By failing to use due care in designing the P320 failing to

incorporate a manual external safety, tabbed trigger safety,
or grip safety to prevent unintended discharges;

iii. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s internal components, including its sear, and by
omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

iv. By failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG

SAUER had done in the past with other defective products;

v. By failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to

discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably
dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to
discharge un-commanded as described above;

vi. By negligently failing to unambiguously warn purchasers

and end users of the gun, including Duran, of said defective,
hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions relating
to its design and manufacture, which it knew or should have
known through the exercise of ordinary care;

vii. By failing to discover the defective, hazardous and

unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s
propensity to discharge un-commanded while in the
possession of SIG SAUER, and during which times
employees, servants or agents of SIG SAUER had an
opportunity to inspect, service and work on the gun;

viii. By negligently failing to place a warning about mere

“vibration” of the gun in a conspicuous manner, such as on
its case, which could be easily understood by a consumer,
instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of the
user manual for the gun after several incidents of un-
commanded discharges;

ix. By including a defective and improper holster in the original

packaging with the gun;

x. By misrepresenting the dangers and hazards posed by the

gun;

84
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 85 of 143

xi. By failing to design a firearm that would be safe for all users
to operate under ordinary circumstances;

xii. By negligently misrepresenting that the P320 is safe when

carried with a round in the chamber;

xiii. By failing to incorporate safeties which were standard

among all of the P320s competitors;

xiv. Other negligent acts and omissions to be developed in the

course of discovery.

462. Sig Sauer knew, or should have known, that exposing users to the dangerous and

defective and hazardous conditions existing in the gun would or could give rise to serious bodily

injuries to such users, up to and including death.

463. The gun’s defective condition was not visible and Duran was not capable of

realizing the dangerous condition and could not have discovered the dangerous condition even

upon performing a reasonable inspection of the same.

464. Sig Sauer’s negligence, as alleged in this Count, directly and proximately caused

the February 26, 2022 unintended discharge and Duran’s injuries resulting from the accident.

465. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence set forth in this Count, Duran

suffered severe physical injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the

enjoyment of life, physical deformity and handicap and embarrassment associated with the same,

loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, attendant care and life care expenses for

his care and treatment. These injuries are either permanent or continuing in their nature and Duran

will suffer such losses and impairments in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against the Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

85
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 86 of 143

COUNT XXVI - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

JUAN DURAN V. SIG SAUER

466. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-allege all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

467. Sig Sauer, by and through its agents, servants, workers, contractors, designers,

assemblers, manufacturers, sellers, suppliers and/or distributors, is strictly liable under §402(A) of

the Restatement (Second) of Torts because:

e. Sig Sauer is engaged in the regular business of designing, assembling,

manufacturing, selling, supplying, distributing, and/or placing into the stream of
commerce firearms, including the P320 that injured Plaintiff;

f. The product involved in the subject incident was marketed and/or placed in the general
stream of commerce by Sig Sauer;

g. The product was expected to and did reach users without substantial change in the
condition in which it was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied,
distributed and/or placed into the stream of commerce;

h. The product was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed,

and/or placed into the stream of commerce in the defective condition for the reasons
set forth above.

468. The P320 was in a defective condition as a reasonable person would conclude that

the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the P320 outweighed the burden or costs of

taking precautions.

469. Sig Sauer breached its duties, by and through their agents, servants, workers and/or

employees, and was jointly and severally careless, negligent, grossly negligent and/or reckless in

the performance of its obligations.

470. The defective condition of the P320 caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

471. Sig Sauer is therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff.

86
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 87 of 143

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XXVII – VIOLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSUMER PROTECTION

ACT
JUAN DURAN V. SIG SAUER

472. Plaintiff adopts all preceding Paragraphs as if fully incorporated herein.

473. By its actions, described in detail in this Complaint, Sig Sauer has engaged in unfair

and deceptive acts in violation of sections 358-A:2(V) and (VII) of New Hampshire’s Consumer

Protection Act.

474. Sig Sauer’s actions have been willing and knowing, and the direct and proximate

cause of substantial damages to Duran, entitled Duran to mandatory doubling and discretionary

trebling of his actual damages, as well as his reasonable attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XXVIII – NEGLIGENCE

KYLA ELLIS V. SIG SAUER

475. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

476. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Ellis the duty to design the P320 weapon in

such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to prevent it from firing without a

user trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of commerce.

477. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Ellis the duty to manufacture, assemble,

inspect and/or test its P320s in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to

87
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 88 of 143

prevent it from firing without a trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of

commerce.

478. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed a duty to unambiguously warn consumers

and/or intended users of the P320, including Ellis, of known or suspected defects that rendered the

gun unreasonably dangerous to handle or use. Upon information and belief, Sig Sauer knew or had

reason to know that the P320 posed an unreasonable risk of harm by virtue of informal and formal

claims arising from substantially similar incidents, internal testing and research, industry

publications and research, and other sources of information to be developed in discovery.

479. Sig Sauer breached the above-cited duties in various ways, including but not limited

to, one or more of the following negligent acts:

i. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s firing and striker assembly to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

ii. By failing to use due care in designing the P320 failing to

incorporate a manual external safety, tabbed trigger safety,
or grip safety to prevent unintended discharges;

iii. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s internal components, including its sear, and by
omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

iv. By failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG

SAUER had done in the past with other defective products;

v. By failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to

discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably
dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to
discharge un-commanded as described above;

vi. By negligently failing to unambiguously warn purchasers

and end users of the gun, including Ellis, of said defective,
hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions relating
to its design and manufacture, which it knew or should have
known through the exercise of ordinary care;

88
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 89 of 143

vii. By failing to discover the defective, hazardous and

unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s
propensity to discharge un-commanded while in the
possession of SIG SAUER, and during which times
employees, servants or agents of SIG SAUER had an
opportunity to inspect, service and work on the gun;

viii. By negligently failing to place a warning about mere

“vibration” of the gun in a conspicuous manner, such as on
its case, which could be easily understood by a consumer,
instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of the
user manual for the gun after several incidents of un-
commanded discharges;

ix. By including a defective and improper holster in the original

packaging with the gun;

x. By misrepresenting the dangers and hazards posed by the

gun;

xi. By failing to design a firearm that would be safe for all users
to operate under ordinary circumstances;

xii. By negligently misrepresenting that the P320 is safe when

carried with a round in the chamber;

xiii. By failing to incorporate safeties which were standard

among all of the P320s competitors;

xiv. Other negligent acts and omissions to be developed in the

course of discovery.

480. Sig Sauer knew, or should have known, that exposing users to the dangerous and

defective and hazardous conditions existing in the gun would or could give rise to serious bodily

injuries to such users, up to and including death.

481. The gun’s defective condition was not visible and Ellis was not capable of realizing

the dangerous condition and could not have discovered the dangerous condition even upon

performing a reasonable inspection of the same.

89
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 90 of 143

482. Sig Sauer’s negligence, as alleged in this Count, directly and proximately caused

the June 15, 2021 unintended discharge and Ellis’ injuries resulting from the accident.

483. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence set forth in this Count, Ellis

suffered severe physical injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the

enjoyment of life, physical deformity and handicap and embarrassment associated with the same,

loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, attendant care and life care expenses for

her care and treatment. These injuries are either permanent or continuing in their nature and Ellis

will suffer such losses and impairments in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against the Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’

fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XXIX - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

KYLA ELLIS V. SIG SAUER

484. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-allege all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

485. Sig Sauer, by and through its agents, servants, workers, contractors, designers,

assemblers, manufacturers, sellers, suppliers and/or distributors, is strictly liable under §402(A) of

the Restatement (Second) of Torts because:

a. Sig Sauer is engaged in the regular business of designing, assembling,

manufacturing, selling, supplying, distributing, and/or placing into the stream of
commerce firearms, including the P320 that injured Plaintiff;

b. The product involved in the subject incident was marketed and/or placed in the general
stream of commerce by Sig Sauer;

c. The product was expected to and did reach users without substantial change in the
condition in which it was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied,
distributed and/or placed into the stream of commerce;

90
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 91 of 143

d. The product was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed,

and/or placed into the stream of commerce in the defective condition for the reasons
set forth above.

486. The P320 was in a defective condition as a reasonable person would conclude that

the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the P320 outweighed the burden or costs of

taking precautions.

487. Sig Sauer breached its duties, by and through their agents, servants, workers and/or

employees, and was jointly and severally careless, negligent, grossly negligent and/or reckless in

the performance of its obligations.

488. The defective condition of the P320 caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

489. Sig Sauer is therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XXX – VIOLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
KYLA ELLIS V. SIG SAUER

490. Plaintiff adopts all preceding Paragraphs as if fully incorporated herein.

491. By its actions, described in detail in this Complaint, Sig Sauer has engaged in unfair

and deceptive acts in violation of sections 358-A:2(V) and (VII) of New Hampshire’s Consumer

Protection Act.

492. Sig Sauer’s actions have been willing and knowing, and the direct and proximate

cause of substantial damages to Ellis entitled Ellis to mandatory doubling and discretionary

trebling of her actual damages, as well as her reasonable attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

91
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 92 of 143

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XXXI – NEGLIGENCE

JAMES GARTH JR. V. SIG SAUER

493. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

494. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Garth the duty to design the P320 weapon in

such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to prevent it from firing without a

user trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of commerce.

495. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Garth the duty to manufacture, assemble,

inspect and/or test its P320s in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to

prevent it from firing without a trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of

commerce.

496. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed a duty to unambiguously warn consumers

and/or intended users of the P320, including Garth, of known or suspected defects that rendered

the gun unreasonably dangerous to handle or use. Upon information and belief, Sig Sauer knew or

had reason to know that the P320 posed an unreasonable risk of harm by virtue of informal and

formal claims arising from substantially similar incidents, internal testing and research, industry

publications and research, and other sources of information to be developed in discovery.

497. Sig Sauer breached the above-cited duties in various ways, including but not limited

to, one or more of the following negligent acts:

i. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s firing and striker assembly to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

92
Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 93 of 143

ii. By failing to use due care in designing the P320 failing to

incorporate a manual external safety, tabbed trigger safety,
or grip safety to prevent unintended discharges;

iii. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s internal components, including its sear, and by
omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

iv. By failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG

SAUER had done in the past with other defective products;

v. By failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to

discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably
dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to
discharge un-commanded as described above;

vi. By negligently failing to unambiguously warn purchasers

and end users of the gun, including Garth, of said defective,
hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions relating
to its design and manufacture, which it knew or should have
known through the exercise of ordinary care;

vii. By failing to discover the defective, hazardous and

unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s
propensity to discharge un-commanded while in the
possession of SIG SAUER, and during which times
employees, servants or agents of SIG SAUER had an
opportunity to inspect, service and work on the gun;

viii. By negligently failing to place a warning about mere

“vibration” of the gun in a conspicuous manner, such as on
its case, which could be easily understood by a consumer,
instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of the
user manual for the gun after several incidents of un-
commanded discharges;

ix. By including a defective and improper holster in the original

packaging with the gun;

x. By misrepresenting the dangers and hazards posed by the

gun;

xi. By failing to design a firearm that would be safe for all users
to operate under ordinary circumstances;

93
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 94 of 143

xii. By negligently misrepresenting that the P320 is safe when

carried with a round in the chamber;

xiii. By failing to incorporate safeties which were standard

among all of the P320s competitors;

xiv. Other negligent acts and omissions to be developed in the

course of discovery.

498. Sig Sauer knew, or should have known, that exposing users to the dangerous and

defective and hazardous conditions existing in the gun would or could give rise to serious bodily

injuries to such users, up to and including death.

499. The gun’s defective condition was not visible and Garth was not capable of

realizing the dangerous condition and could not have discovered the dangerous condition even

upon performing a reasonable inspection of the same.

500. Sig Sauer’s negligence, as alleged in this Count, directly and proximately caused

the August 18, 2021 unintended discharge and Garth’s injuries resulting from the accident.

501. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence set forth in this Count, Garth

suffered severe physical injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the

enjoyment of life, physical deformity and handicap and embarrassment associated with the same,

loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, attendant care and life care expenses for

his care and treatment. These injuries are either permanent or continuing in their nature and Garth

will suffer such losses and impairments in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against the Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’

fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

94
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 95 of 143

COUNT XXXII - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

JAMES GARTH JR. V. SIG SAUER

502. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-allege all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

503. Sig Sauer, by and through its agents, servants, workers, contractors, designers,

assemblers, manufacturers, sellers, suppliers and/or distributors, is strictly liable under §402(A) of

the Restatement (Second) of Torts because:

i. Sig Sauer is engaged in the regular business of designing, assembling,

manufacturing, selling, supplying, distributing, and/or placing into the stream of
commerce firearms, including the P320 that injured Plaintiff;

j. The product involved in the subject incident was marketed and/or placed in the general
stream of commerce by Sig Sauer;

k. The product was expected to and did reach users without substantial change in the
condition in which it was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied,
distributed and/or placed into the stream of commerce;

l. The product was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed,

and/or placed into the stream of commerce in the defective condition for the reasons
set forth above.

504. The P320 was in a defective condition as a reasonable person would conclude that

the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the P320 outweighed the burden or costs of

taking precautions.

505. Sig Sauer breached its duties, by and through their agents, servants, workers and/or

employees, and was jointly and severally careless, negligent, grossly negligent and/or reckless in

the performance of its obligations.

506. The defective condition of the P320 caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

507. Sig Sauer is therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

95
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 96 of 143

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XXXIII – VIOLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSUMER PROTECTION

ACT
JAMES GARTH JR. V. SIG SAUER

508. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

509. By its actions, described in detail in this Complaint, Sig Sauer has engaged in unfair

and deceptive acts in violation of sections 358-A:2(V) and (VII) of New Hampshire’s Consumer

Protection Act.

510. Sig Sauer’s actions have been willing and knowing, and the direct and proximate

cause of substantial damages to Garth, entitled Garth to mandatory doubling and discretionary

trebling of his actual damages, as well as his reasonable attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XXXIV – NEGLIGENCE

JOSEPH HALASE V. SIG SAUER

511. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

512. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Halase the duty to design the P320 weapon

in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to prevent it from firing without

a user trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of commerce.

513. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Halase the duty to manufacture, assemble,

inspect and/or test its P320s in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to

96
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 97 of 143

prevent it from firing without a trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of

commerce.

514. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed a duty to unambiguously warn consumers

and/or intended users of the P320, including Halase, of known or suspected defects that rendered

the gun unreasonably dangerous to handle or use. Upon information and belief, Sig Sauer knew or

had reason to know that the P320 posed an unreasonable risk of harm by virtue of informal and

formal claims arising from substantially similar incidents, internal testing and research, industry

publications and research, and other sources of information to be developed in discovery.

515. Sig Sauer breached the above-cited duties in various ways, including but not limited

to, one or more of the following negligent acts:

i. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s firing and striker assembly to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

ii. By failing to use due care in designing the P320 failing to

incorporate a manual external safety, tabbed trigger safety,
or grip safety to prevent unintended discharges;

iii. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s internal components, including its sear, and by
omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

iv. By failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG

SAUER had done in the past with other defective products;

v. By failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to

discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably
dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to
discharge un-commanded as described above;

vi. By negligently failing to unambiguously warn purchasers

and end users of the gun, including Halase, of said defective,
hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions relating
to its design and manufacture, which it knew or should have
known through the exercise of ordinary care;

97
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 98 of 143

vii. By failing to discover the defective, hazardous and

unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s
propensity to discharge un-commanded while in the
possession of SIG SAUER, and during which times
employees, servants or agents of SIG SAUER had an
opportunity to inspect, service and work on the gun;

viii. By negligently failing to place a warning about mere

“vibration” of the gun in a conspicuous manner, such as on
its case, which could be easily understood by a consumer,
instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of the
user manual for the gun after several incidents of un-
commanded discharges;

ix. By including a defective and improper holster in the original

packaging with the gun;

x. By misrepresenting the dangers and hazards posed by the

gun;

xi. By failing to design a firearm that would be safe for all users
to operate under ordinary circumstances;

xii. By negligently misrepresenting that the P320 is safe when

carried with a round in the chamber;

xiii. By failing to incorporate safeties which were standard

among all of the P320s competitors;

xiv. Other negligent acts and omissions to be developed in the

course of discovery.

516. Sig Sauer knew, or should have known, that exposing users to the dangerous and

defective and hazardous conditions existing in the gun would or could give rise to serious bodily

injuries to such users, up to and including death.

517. The gun’s defective condition was not visible and Halase was not capable of

realizing the dangerous condition and could not have discovered the dangerous condition even

upon performing a reasonable inspection of the same.

98
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 99 of 143

518. Sig Sauer’s negligence, as alleged in this Count, directly and proximately caused

the July 27, 2020 unintended discharge and Halase’s injuries resulting from the accident.

519. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence set forth in this Count, Halase

suffered severe physical injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the

enjoyment of life, physical deformity and handicap and embarrassment associated with the same,

loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, attendant care and life care expenses for

his care and treatment. These injuries are either permanent or continuing in their nature and Halase

will suffer such losses and impairments in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against the Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’

fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XXXV - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

JOSEPH HALASE V. SIG SAUER

520. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-allege all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

521. Sig Sauer, by and through its agents, servants, workers, contractors, designers,

assemblers, manufacturers, sellers, suppliers and/or distributors, is strictly liable under §402(A) of

the Restatement (Second) of Torts because:

a. Sig Sauer is engaged in the regular business of designing, assembling,

manufacturing, selling, supplying, distributing, and/or placing into the stream of
commerce firearms, including the P320 that injured Plaintiff;

b. The product involved in the subject incident was marketed and/or placed in the general
stream of commerce by Sig Sauer;

c. The product was expected to and did reach users without substantial change in the
condition in which it was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied,
distributed and/or placed into the stream of commerce;

99
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 100 of 143

d. The product was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed,

and/or placed into the stream of commerce in the defective condition for the reasons
set forth above.

522. The P320 was in a defective condition as a reasonable person would conclude that

the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the P320 outweighed the burden or costs of

taking precautions.

523. Sig Sauer breached its duties, by and through their agents, servants, workers and/or

employees, and was jointly and severally careless, negligent, grossly negligent and/or reckless in

the performance of its obligations.

524. The defective condition of the P320 caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

525. Sig Sauer is therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XXXVI – VIOLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSUMER PROTECTION

ACT
JOSEPH HALASE V. SIG SAUER

526. Plaintiff adopts all preceding Paragraphs as if fully incorporated herein.

527. By its actions, described in detail in this Complaint, Sig Sauer has engaged in unfair

and deceptive acts in violation of sections 358-A:2(V) and (VII) of New Hampshire’s Consumer

Protection Act.

528. Sig Sauer’s actions have been willing and knowing, and the direct and proximate

cause of substantial damages to Halase entitled Halase to mandatory doubling and discretionary

trebling of his actual damages, as well as his reasonable attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

100
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 101 of 143

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XXXVII – NEGLIGENCE

AMY HENDEL V. SIG SAUER

529. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

530. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Hendel the duty to design the P320 weapon

in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to prevent it from firing without

a user trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of commerce.

531. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Hendel the duty to manufacture, assemble,

inspect and/or test its P320s in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to

prevent it from firing without a trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of

commerce.

532. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed a duty to unambiguously warn consumers

and/or intended users of the P320, including Hendel, of known or suspected defects that rendered

the gun unreasonably dangerous to handle or use. Upon information and belief, Sig Sauer knew or

had reason to know that the P320 posed an unreasonable risk of harm by virtue of informal and

formal claims arising from substantially similar incidents, internal testing and research, industry

publications and research, and other sources of information to be developed in discovery.

533. Sig Sauer breached the above-cited duties in various ways, including but not limited

to, one or more of the following negligent acts:

i. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s firing and striker assembly to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

101
Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 102 of 143

ii. By failing to use due care in designing the P320 failing to

incorporate a manual external safety, tabbed trigger safety,
or grip safety to prevent unintended discharges;

iii. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s internal components, including its sear, and by
omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

iv. By failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG

SAUER had done in the past with other defective products;

v. By failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to

discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably
dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to
discharge un-commanded as described above;

vi. By negligently failing to unambiguously warn purchasers

and end users of the gun, including Hendel, of said defective,
hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions relating
to its design and manufacture, which it knew or should have
known through the exercise of ordinary care;

vii. By failing to discover the defective, hazardous and

unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s
propensity to discharge un-commanded while in the
possession of SIG SAUER, and during which times
employees, servants or agents of SIG SAUER had an
opportunity to inspect, service and work on the gun;

viii. By negligently failing to place a warning about mere

“vibration” of the gun in a conspicuous manner, such as on
its case, which could be easily understood by a consumer,
instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of the
user manual for the gun after several incidents of un-
commanded discharges;

ix. By including a defective and improper holster in the original

packaging with the gun;

x. By misrepresenting the dangers and hazards posed by the

gun;

xi. By failing to design a firearm that would be safe for all users
to operate under ordinary circumstances;

102
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 103 of 143

xii. By negligently misrepresenting that the P320 is safe when

carried with a round in the chamber;

xiii. By failing to incorporate safeties which were standard

among all of the P320s competitors;

xiv. Other negligent acts and omissions to be developed in the

course of discovery.

534. Sig Sauer knew, or should have known, that exposing users to the dangerous and

defective and hazardous conditions existing in the gun would or could give rise to serious bodily

injuries to such users, up to and including death.

535. The gun’s defective condition was not visible and Hendel was not capable of

realizing the dangerous condition and could not have discovered the dangerous condition even

upon performing a reasonable inspection of the same.

536. Sig Sauer’s negligence, as alleged in this Count, directly and proximately caused

the May 12, 2021 unintended discharge and Hendel’s injuries resulting from the accident.

537. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence set forth in this Count, Hendel

suffered severe physical injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the

enjoyment of life, physical deformity and handicap and embarrassment associated with the same,

loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, attendant care and life care expenses for

her care and treatment. These injuries are either permanent or continuing in their nature and

Hendel will suffer such losses and impairments in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against the Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’

fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

103
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 104 of 143

COUNT XXXVIII - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

AMY HENDEL V. SIG SAUER

538. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-allege all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

539. Sig Sauer, by and through its agents, servants, workers, contractors, designers,

assemblers, manufacturers, sellers, suppliers and/or distributors, is strictly liable under §402(A) of

the Restatement (Second) of Torts because:

a. Sig Sauer is engaged in the regular business of designing, assembling,

manufacturing, selling, supplying, distributing, and/or placing into the stream of
commerce firearms, including the P320 that injured Plaintiff;

b. The product involved in the subject incident was marketed and/or placed in the general
stream of commerce by Sig Sauer;

c. The product was expected to and did reach users without substantial change in the
condition in which it was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied,
distributed and/or placed into the stream of commerce;

d. The product was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed,

and/or placed into the stream of commerce in the defective condition for the reasons
set forth above.

540. The P320 was in a defective condition as a reasonable person would conclude that

the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the P320 outweighed the burden or costs of

taking precautions.

541. Sig Sauer breached its duties, by and through their agents, servants, workers and/or

employees, and was jointly and severally careless, negligent, grossly negligent and/or reckless in

the performance of its obligations.

542. The defective condition of the P320 caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

543. Sig Sauer is therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff.

104
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 105 of 143

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XXXIX- VIOLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
AMY HENDEL V. SIG SAUER

544. Plaintiff adopts all preceding Paragraphs as if fully incorporated herein.

545. By its actions, described in detail in this Complaint, Sig Sauer has engaged in unfair

and deceptive acts in violation of sections 358-A:2(V) and (VII) of New Hampshire’s Consumer

Protection Act.

546. Sig Sauer’s actions have been willing and knowing, and the direct and proximate

cause of substantial damages to Hendel entitled Hendel to mandatory doubling and discretionary

trebling of her actual damages, as well as her reasonable attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XL – NEGLIGENCE
NATHAN HENYAN V. SIG SAUER

547. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

548. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Henyan the duty to design the P320 weapon

in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to prevent it from firing without

a user trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of commerce.

549. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Henyan the duty to manufacture, assemble,

inspect and/or test its P320s in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to

105
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 106 of 143

prevent it from firing without a trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of

commerce.

550. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed a duty to unambiguously warn consumers

and/or intended users of the P320, including Henyan, of known or suspected defects that rendered

the gun unreasonably dangerous to handle or use. Upon information and belief, Sig Sauer knew or

had reason to know that the P320 posed an unreasonable risk of harm by virtue of informal and

formal claims arising from substantially similar incidents, internal testing and research, industry

publications and research, and other sources of information to be developed in discovery.

551. Sig Sauer breached the above-cited duties in various ways, including but not limited

to, one or more of the following negligent acts:

i. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s firing and striker assembly to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

ii. By failing to use due care in designing the P320 failing to

incorporate a manual external safety, tabbed trigger safety,
or grip safety to prevent unintended discharges;

iii. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s internal components, including its sear, and by
omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

iv. By failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG

SAUER had done in the past with other defective products;

v. By failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to

discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably
dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to
discharge un-commanded as described above;

vi. By negligently failing to unambiguously warn purchasers

and end users of the gun, including Henyan, of said
defective, hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions
relating to its design and manufacture, which it knew or
should have known through the exercise of ordinary care;

106
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 107 of 143

vii. By failing to discover the defective, hazardous and

unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s
propensity to discharge un-commanded while in the
possession of SIG SAUER, and during which times
employees, servants or agents of SIG SAUER had an
opportunity to inspect, service and work on the gun;

viii. By negligently failing to place a warning about mere

“vibration” of the gun in a conspicuous manner, such as on
its case, which could be easily understood by a consumer,
instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of the
user manual for the gun after several incidents of un-
commanded discharges;

ix. By including a defective and improper holster in the original

packaging with the gun;

x. By misrepresenting the dangers and hazards posed by the

gun;

xi. By failing to design a firearm that would be safe for all users
to operate under ordinary circumstances;

xii. By negligently misrepresenting that the P320 is safe when

carried with a round in the chamber;

xiii. By failing to incorporate safeties which were standard

among all of the P320s competitors;

xiv. Other negligent acts and omissions to be developed in the

course of discovery.

552. Sig Sauer knew, or should have known, that exposing users to the dangerous and

defective and hazardous conditions existing in the gun would or could give rise to serious bodily

injuries to such users, up to and including death.

553. The gun’s defective condition was not visible and Henyan was not capable of

realizing the dangerous condition and could not have discovered the dangerous condition even

upon performing a reasonable inspection of the same.

107
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 108 of 143

554. Sig Sauer’s negligence, as alleged in this Count, directly and proximately caused

the April 15, 2020 unintended discharge and Henyan’s injuries resulting from the accident.

555. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence set forth in this Count, Henyan

suffered severe physical injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the

enjoyment of life, physical deformity and handicap and embarrassment associated with the same,

loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, attendant care and life care expenses for

his care and treatment. These injuries are either permanent or continuing in their nature and

Henyan will suffer such losses and impairments in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against the Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’

fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XLI - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

NATHAN HENYAN V. SIG SAUER

556. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-allege all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

557. Sig Sauer, by and through its agents, servants, workers, contractors, designers,

assemblers, manufacturers, sellers, suppliers and/or distributors, is strictly liable under §402(A) of

the Restatement (Second) of Torts because:

a. Sig Sauer is engaged in the regular business of designing, assembling,

manufacturing, selling, supplying, distributing, and/or placing into the stream of
commerce firearms, including the P320 that injured Plaintiff;

b. The product involved in the subject incident was marketed and/or placed in the general
stream of commerce by Sig Sauer;

c. The product was expected to and did reach users without substantial change in the
condition in which it was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied,
distributed and/or placed into the stream of commerce;

108
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 109 of 143

d. The product was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed,

and/or placed into the stream of commerce in the defective condition for the reasons
set forth above.

558. The P320 was in a defective condition as a reasonable person would conclude that

the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the P320 outweighed the burden or costs of

taking precautions.

559. Sig Sauer breached its duties, by and through their agents, servants, workers and/or

employees, and was jointly and severally careless, negligent, grossly negligent and/or reckless in

the performance of its obligations.

560. The defective condition of the P320 caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

561. Sig Sauer is therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XLII - VIOLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

NATHAN HENYAN V. SIG SAUER

562. Plaintiff adopts all preceding Paragraphs as if fully incorporated herein.

563. By its actions, described in detail in this Complaint, Sig Sauer has engaged in unfair

and deceptive acts in violation of sections 358-A:2(V) and (VII) of New Hampshire’s Consumer

Protection Act.

564. Sig Sauer’s actions have been willing and knowing, and the direct and proximate

cause of substantial damages to Henyan entitled Henyan to mandatory doubling and discretionary

trebling of his actual damages, as well as his reasonable attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

109
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 110 of 143

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XLIII– NEGLIGENCE

DWIGHT JACKSON V. SIG SAUER

565. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

566. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Jackson the duty to design the P320 weapon

in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to prevent it from firing without

a user trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of commerce.

567. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Jackson the duty to manufacture, assemble,

inspect and/or test its P320s in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to

prevent it from firing without a trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of

commerce.

568. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed a duty to unambiguously warn consumers

and/or intended users of the P320, including Jackson, of known or suspected defects that rendered

the gun unreasonably dangerous to handle or use. Upon information and belief, Sig Sauer knew or

had reason to know that the P320 posed an unreasonable risk of harm by virtue of informal and

formal claims arising from substantially similar incidents, internal testing and research, industry

publications and research, and other sources of information to be developed in discovery.

569. Sig Sauer breached the above-cited duties in various ways, including but not limited

to, one or more of the following negligent acts:

i. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s firing and striker assembly to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

ii. By failing to use due care in designing the P320 failing to

incorporate a manual external safety, tabbed trigger safety,
or grip safety to prevent unintended discharges;

110
Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 111 of 143

iii. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s internal components, including its sear, and by
omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

iv. By failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG

SAUER had done in the past with other defective products;

v. By failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to

discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably
dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to
discharge un-commanded as described above;

vi. By negligently failing to unambiguously warn purchasers

and end users of the gun, including Jackson, of said
defective, hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions
relating to its design and manufacture, which it knew or
should have known through the exercise of ordinary care;

vii. By failing to discover the defective, hazardous and

unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s
propensity to discharge un-commanded while in the
possession of SIG SAUER, and during which times
employees, servants or agents of SIG SAUER had an
opportunity to inspect, service and work on the gun;

viii. By negligently failing to place a warning about mere

“vibration” of the gun in a conspicuous manner, such as on
its case, which could be easily understood by a consumer,
instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of the
user manual for the gun after several incidents of un-
commanded discharges;

ix. By including a defective and improper holster in the original

packaging with the gun;

x. By misrepresenting the dangers and hazards posed by the

gun;

xi. By failing to design a firearm that would be safe for all users
to operate under ordinary circumstances;

xii. By negligently misrepresenting that the P320 is safe when

carried with a round in the chamber;

111
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 112 of 143

xiii. By failing to incorporate safeties which were standard

among all of the P320s competitors;

xiv. Other negligent acts and omissions to be developed in the

course of discovery.

570. Sig Sauer knew, or should have known, that exposing users to the dangerous and

defective and hazardous conditions existing in the gun would or could give rise to serious bodily

injuries to such users, up to and including death.

571. The gun’s defective condition was not visible and Jackson was not capable of

realizing the dangerous condition and could not have discovered the dangerous condition even

upon performing a reasonable inspection of the same.

572. Sig Sauer’s negligence, as alleged in this Count, directly and proximately caused

the May 25, 2022 unintended discharge and Jackson injuries resulting from the accident.

573. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence set forth in this Count, Jackson

suffered severe physical injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the

enjoyment of life, physical deformity and handicap and embarrassment associated with the same,

loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, attendant care and life care expenses for

his care and treatment. These injuries are either permanent or continuing in their nature and

Jackson will suffer such losses and impairments in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against the Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’

fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XLIV - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

DWIGHT JACKSON V. SIG SAUER

574. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-allege all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

112
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 113 of 143

575. Sig Sauer, by and through its agents, servants, workers, contractors, designers,

assemblers, manufacturers, sellers, suppliers and/or distributors, is strictly liable under §402(A) of

the Restatement (Second) of Torts because:

m. Sig Sauer is engaged in the regular business of designing, assembling,

manufacturing, selling, supplying, distributing, and/or placing into the stream of
commerce firearms, including the P320 that injured Plaintiff;

n. The product involved in the subject incident was marketed and/or placed in the general
stream of commerce by Sig Sauer;

o. The product was expected to and did reach users without substantial change in the
condition in which it was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied,
distributed and/or placed into the stream of commerce;

p. The product was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed,

and/or placed into the stream of commerce in the defective condition for the reasons
set forth above.

576. The P320 was in a defective condition as a reasonable person would conclude that

the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the P320 outweighed the burden or costs of

taking precautions.

577. Sig Sauer breached its duties, by and through their agents, servants, workers and/or

employees, and was jointly and severally careless, negligent, grossly negligent and/or reckless in

the performance of its obligations.

578. The defective condition of the P320 caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

579. Sig Sauer is therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

113
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 114 of 143

COUNT XLV – VIOLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

DWIGHT JACKSON V. SIG SAUER

580. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

581. By its actions, described in detail in this Complaint, Sig Sauer has engaged in unfair

and deceptive acts in violation of sections 358-A:2(V) and (VII) of New Hampshire’s Consumer

Protection Act.

582. Sig Sauer’s actions have been willing and knowing, and the direct and proximate

cause of substantial damages to Jackson, entitled Jackson to mandatory doubling and discretionary

trebling of his actual damages, as well as his reasonable attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XLVI – NEGLIGENCE

ADAM MARITATO V. SIG SAUER

583. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

584. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Maritato the duty to design the P320 weapon

in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to prevent it from firing without

a user trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of commerce.

585. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Maritato the duty to manufacture, assemble,

inspect and/or test its P320s in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to

prevent it from firing without a trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of

commerce.

114
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 115 of 143

586. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed a duty to unambiguously warn consumers

and/or intended users of the P320, including Maritato, of known or suspected defects that rendered

the gun unreasonably dangerous to handle or use. Upon information and belief, Sig Sauer knew or

had reason to know that the P320 posed an unreasonable risk of harm by virtue of informal and

formal claims arising from substantially similar incidents, internal testing and research, industry

publications and research, and other sources of information to be developed in discovery.

587. Sig Sauer breached the above-cited duties in various ways, including but not limited

to, one or more of the following negligent acts:

i. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s firing and striker assembly to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

ii. By failing to use due care in designing the P320 failing to

incorporate a manual external safety, tabbed trigger safety,
or grip safety to prevent unintended discharges;

iii. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s internal components, including its sear, and by
omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

iv. By failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG

SAUER had done in the past with other defective products;

v. By failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to

discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably
dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to
discharge un-commanded as described above;

vi. By negligently failing to unambiguously warn purchasers

and end users of the gun, including Maritato, of said
defective, hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions
relating to its design and manufacture, which it knew or
should have known through the exercise of ordinary care;

vii. By failing to discover the defective, hazardous and

unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s
propensity to discharge un-commanded while in the

115
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 116 of 143

possession of SIG SAUER, and during which times

employees, servants or agents of SIG SAUER had an
opportunity to inspect, service and work on the gun;

viii. By negligently failing to place a warning about mere

“vibration” of the gun in a conspicuous manner, such as on
its case, which could be easily understood by a consumer,
instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of the
user manual for the gun after several incidents of un-
commanded discharges;

ix. By including a defective and improper holster in the original

packaging with the gun;

xi. By failing to design a firearm that would be safe for all users
to operate under ordinary circumstances;

xii. By negligently misrepresenting that the P320 is safe when

carried with a round in the chamber;

xiii. By failing to incorporate safeties which were standard

among all of the P320s competitors;

xiv. Other negligent acts and omissions to be developed in the

course of discovery.

588. Sig Sauer knew, or should have known, that exposing users to the dangerous and

defective and hazardous conditions existing in the gun would or could give rise to serious bodily

injuries to such users, up to and including death.

589. The gun’s defective condition was not visible and Maritato was not capable of

realizing the dangerous condition and could not have discovered the dangerous condition even

upon performing a reasonable inspection of the same.

590. Sig Sauer’s negligence, as alleged in this Count, directly and proximately caused

the July 14, 2020 unintended discharge and Maritato’s injuries resulting from the accident.

591. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence set forth in this Count, Maritato

suffered severe injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the enjoyment of

life, loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, attendant care and life care expenses

116
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 117 of 143

for his care and treatment. These injuries are either permanent or continuing in their nature and

Maritato will suffer such losses and impairments in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against the Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’

fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XLVII - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

ADAM MARITATO V. SIG SAUER

592. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-allege all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

593. Sig Sauer, by and through its agents, servants, workers, contractors, designers,

assemblers, manufacturers, sellers, suppliers and/or distributors, is strictly liable under §402(A) of

the Restatement (Second) of Torts because:

a. Sig Sauer is engaged in the regular business of designing, assembling,

manufacturing, selling, supplying, distributing, and/or placing into the stream of
commerce firearms, including the P320 that injured Plaintiff;

b. The product involved in the subject incident was marketed and/or placed in the general
stream of commerce by Sig Sauer;

c. The product was expected to and did reach users without substantial change in the
condition in which it was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied,
distributed and/or placed into the stream of commerce;

d. The product was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed,

and/or placed into the stream of commerce in the defective condition for the reasons
set forth above.

594. The P320 was in a defective condition as a reasonable person would conclude that

the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the P320 outweighed the burden or costs of

taking precautions.

117
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 118 of 143

595. Sig Sauer breached its duties, by and through their agents, servants, workers and/or

employees, and was jointly and severally careless, negligent, grossly negligent and/or reckless in

the performance of its obligations.

596. The defective condition of the P320 caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

597. Sig Sauer is therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XLVIII – VIOLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
ADAM MARITATO V. SIG SAUER

598. Plaintiff adopts all preceding Paragraphs as if fully incorporated herein.

599. By its actions, described in detail in this Complaint, Sig Sauer has engaged in unfair

and deceptive acts in violation of sections 358-A:2(V) and (VII) of New Hampshire’s Consumer

Protection Act.

600. Sig Sauer’s actions have been willing and knowing, and the direct and proximate

cause of substantial damages to Maritato entitled Maritato to mandatory doubling and

discretionary trebling of his actual damages, as well as her reasonable attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT XLIX – NEGLIGENCE

MICHAEL PARKER V. SIG SAUER

601. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

118
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 119 of 143

602. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Parker the duty to design the P320 weapon in

such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to prevent it from firing without a

user trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of commerce.

603. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Parker the duty to manufacture, assemble,

inspect and/or test its P320s in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to

prevent it from firing without a trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of

commerce.

604. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed a duty to unambiguously warn consumers

and/or intended users of the P320, including Parker, of known or suspected defects that rendered

the gun unreasonably dangerous to handle or use. Upon information and belief, Sig Sauer knew or

had reason to know that the P320 posed an unreasonable risk of harm by virtue of informal and

formal claims arising from substantially similar incidents, internal testing and research, industry

publications and research, and other sources of information to be developed in discovery.

605. Sig Sauer breached the above-cited duties in various ways, including but not limited

to, one or more of the following negligent acts:

i. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s firing and striker assembly to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

ii. By failing to use due care in designing the P320 failing to

incorporate a manual external safety, tabbed trigger safety,
or grip safety to prevent unintended discharges;

iii. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s internal components, including its sear, and by
omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

iv. By failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG

SAUER had done in the past with other defective products;

119
Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 120 of 143

v. By failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to

discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably
dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to
discharge un-commanded as described above;

vi. By negligently failing to unambiguously warn purchasers

and end users of the gun, including Parker, of said defective,
hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions relating
to its design and manufacture, which it knew or should have
known through the exercise of ordinary care;

vii. By failing to discover the defective, hazardous and

unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s
propensity to discharge un-commanded while in the
possession of SIG SAUER, and during which times
employees, servants or agents of SIG SAUER had an
opportunity to inspect, service and work on the gun;

viii. By negligently failing to place a warning about mere

“vibration” of the gun in a conspicuous manner, such as on
its case, which could be easily understood by a consumer,
instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of the
user manual for the gun after several incidents of un-
commanded discharges;

ix. By including a defective and improper holster in the original

packaging with the gun;

x. By misrepresenting the dangers and hazards posed by the

gun;

xi. By failing to design a firearm that would be safe for all users
to operate under ordinary circumstances;

xii. By negligently misrepresenting that the P320 is safe when

carried with a round in the chamber;

xiii. By failing to incorporate safeties which were standard

among all of the P320s competitors;

xiv. Other negligent acts and omissions to be developed in the

course of discovery.

120
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 121 of 143

606. Sig Sauer knew, or should have known, that exposing users to the dangerous and

defective and hazardous conditions existing in the gun would or could give rise to serious bodily

injuries to such users, up to and including death.

607. The gun’s defective condition was not visible and Parker was not capable of

realizing the dangerous condition and could not have discovered the dangerous condition even

upon performing a reasonable inspection of the same.

608. Sig Sauer’s negligence, as alleged in this Count, directly and proximately caused

the November 2, 2021 unintended discharge and Parker’s injuries resulting from the accident.

609. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence set forth in this Count, Parker

suffered severe physical injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the

enjoyment of life, physical deformity and handicap and embarrassment associated with the same,

loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, attendant care and life care expenses for

his care and treatment. These injuries are either permanent or continuing in their nature and

Delgado will suffer such losses and impairments in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against the Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’

fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT L - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

MICHAEL PARKER V. SIG SAUER

610. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-allege all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

611. Sig Sauer, by and through its agents, servants, workers, contractors, designers,

assemblers, manufacturers, sellers, suppliers and/or distributors, is strictly liable under §402(A) of

the Restatement (Second) of Torts because:

121
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 122 of 143

a. Sig Sauer is engaged in the regular business of designing, assembling,

manufacturing, selling, supplying, distributing, and/or placing into the stream of
commerce firearms, including the P320 that injured Plaintiff;

b. The product involved in the subject incident was marketed and/or placed in the general
stream of commerce by Sig Sauer;

c. The product was expected to and did reach users without substantial change in the
condition in which it was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied,
distributed and/or placed into the stream of commerce;

d. The product was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed,

and/or placed into the stream of commerce in the defective condition for the reasons
set forth above.

612. The P320 was in a defective condition as a reasonable person would conclude that

the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the P320 outweighed the burden or costs of

taking precautions.

613. Sig Sauer breached its duties, by and through their agents, servants, workers and/or

employees, and was jointly and severally careless, negligent, grossly negligent and/or reckless in

the performance of its obligations.

614. The defective condition of the P320 caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

615. Sig Sauer is therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LI– VIOLATION OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
MICHAEL PARKER V. SIG SAUER

616. Plaintiff adopts all preceding Paragraphs as if fully incorporated herein.

122
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 123 of 143

617. By its actions, described in detail in this Complaint, Sig Sauer has engaged in unfair

and deceptive acts in violation of sections 358-A:2(V) and (VII) of New Hampshire’s Consumer

Protection Act.

618. Sig Sauer’s actions have been willing and knowing, and the direct and proximate

cause of substantial damages to Parker entitled Parker to mandatory doubling and discretionary

trebling of his actual damages, as well as his reasonable attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LII – NEGLIGENCE

ROBERT PARKS V. SIG SAUER

619. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

620. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Parks the duty to design the P320 weapon in

such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to prevent it from firing without a

user trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of commerce.

621. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Parks the duty to manufacture, assemble,

inspect and/or test its P320s in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to

prevent it from firing without a trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of

commerce.

622. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed a duty to unambiguously warn consumers

and/or intended users of the P320, including Parks, of known or suspected defects that rendered

the gun unreasonably dangerous to handle or use. Upon information and belief, Sig Sauer knew or

had reason to know that the P320 posed an unreasonable risk of harm by virtue of informal and

123
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 124 of 143

formal claims arising from substantially similar incidents, internal testing and research, industry

publications and research, and other sources of information to be developed in discovery.

623. Sig Sauer breached the above-cited duties in various ways, including but not limited

to, one or more of the following negligent acts:

i. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s firing and striker assembly to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

ii. By failing to use due care in designing the P320 failing to

incorporate a manual external safety, tabbed trigger safety,
or grip safety to prevent unintended discharges;

iii. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s internal components, including its sear, and by
omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

iv. By failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG

SAUER had done in the past with other defective products;

v. By failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to

discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably
dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to
discharge un-commanded as described above;

vi. By negligently failing to unambiguously warn purchasers

and end users of the gun, including Parks, of said defective,
hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions relating
to its design and manufacture, which it knew or should have
known through the exercise of ordinary care;

vii. By failing to discover the defective, hazardous and

unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s
propensity to discharge un-commanded while in the
possession of SIG SAUER, and during which times
employees, servants or agents of SIG SAUER had an
opportunity to inspect, service and work on the gun;

viii. By negligently failing to place a warning about mere

“vibration” of the gun in a conspicuous manner, such as on
its case, which could be easily understood by a consumer,
instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of the

124
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 125 of 143

user manual for the gun after several incidents of un-

commanded discharges;

ix. By including a defective and improper holster in the original

packaging with the gun;

x. By misrepresenting the dangers and hazards posed by the

gun;

xi. By failing to design a firearm that would be safe for all users
to operate under ordinary circumstances;

xii. By negligently misrepresenting that the P320 is safe when

carried with a round in the chamber;

xiii. By failing to incorporate safeties which were standard

among all of the P320s competitors;

xiv. Other negligent acts and omissions to be developed in the

course of discovery.

624. Sig Sauer knew, or should have known, that exposing users to the dangerous and

defective and hazardous conditions existing in the gun would or could give rise to serious bodily

injuries to such users, up to and including death.

625. The gun’s defective condition was not visible and Parks was not capable of

realizing the dangerous condition and could not have discovered the dangerous condition even

upon performing a reasonable inspection of the same.

626. Sig Sauer’s negligence, as alleged in this Count, directly and proximately caused

the July 14, 2020 unintended discharge and Parks’s emotional injuries resulting from the accident.

627. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence set forth in this Count, Parks

suffered severe mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the enjoyment of life,

incurred medical, attendant care and life care expenses for his care and treatment. These injuries

are either permanent or continuing in their nature and Parks will suffer such losses and impairments

in the future.

125
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 126 of 143

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against the Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’

fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LIII - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

ROBERT PARKS V. SIG SAUER

628. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-allege all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

629. Sig Sauer, by and through its agents, servants, workers, contractors, designers,

assemblers, manufacturers, sellers, suppliers and/or distributors, is strictly liable under §402(A) of

the Restatement (Second) of Torts because:

a. Sig Sauer is engaged in the regular business of designing, assembling,

manufacturing, selling, supplying, distributing, and/or placing into the stream of
commerce firearms, including the P320 that injured Plaintiff;

b. The product involved in the subject incident was marketed and/or placed in the general
stream of commerce by Sig Sauer;

c. The product was expected to and did reach users without substantial change in the
condition in which it was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied,
distributed and/or placed into the stream of commerce;

d. The product was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed,

and/or placed into the stream of commerce in the defective condition for the reasons
set forth above.

630. The P320 was in a defective condition as a reasonable person would conclude that

the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the P320 outweighed the burden or costs of

taking precautions.

631. Sig Sauer breached its duties, by and through their agents, servants, workers and/or

employees, and was jointly and severally careless, negligent, grossly negligent and/or reckless in

the performance of its obligations.

126
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 127 of 143

632. The defective condition of the P320 caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

633. Sig Sauer is therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’

fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LIV – VIOLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
ROBERT PARKS V. SIG SAUER

634. Plaintiff adopts all preceding Paragraphs as if fully incorporated herein.

635. By its actions, described in detail in this Complaint, Sig Sauer has engaged in unfair

and deceptive acts in violation of sections 358-A:2(V) and (VII) of New Hampshire’s Consumer

Protection Act.

636. Sig Sauer’s actions have been willing and knowing, and the direct and proximate

cause of substantial damages to Parks entitled Parks to mandatory doubling and discretionary

trebling of his actual damages, as well as his reasonable attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LV – NEGLIGENCE
JAMES SCOPPA V. SIG SAUER

637. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

638. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Scoppa the duty to design the P320 weapon

in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to prevent it from firing without

a user trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of commerce.

127
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 128 of 143

639. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Scoppa the duty to manufacture, assemble,

inspect and/or test its P320s in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to

prevent it from firing without a trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of

commerce.

640. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed a duty to unambiguously warn consumers

and/or intended users of the P320, including Scoppa, of known or suspected defects that rendered

the gun unreasonably dangerous to handle or use. Upon information and belief, Sig Sauer knew or

had reason to know that the P320 posed an unreasonable risk of harm by virtue of informal and

formal claims arising from substantially similar incidents, internal testing and research, industry

publications and research, and other sources of information to be developed in discovery.

641. Sig Sauer breached the above-cited duties in various ways, including but not limited

to, one or more of the following negligent acts:

i. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s firing and striker assembly to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

ii. By failing to use due care in designing the P320 failing to

incorporate a manual external safety, tabbed trigger safety,
or grip safety to prevent unintended discharges;

iii. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s internal components, including its sear, and by
omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

iv. By failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG

SAUER had done in the past with other defective products;

v. By failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to

discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably
dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to
discharge un-commanded as described above;

128
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 129 of 143

vi. By negligently failing to unambiguously warn purchasers

and end users of the gun, including Scoppa, of said defective,
hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions relating
to its design and manufacture, which it knew or should have
known through the exercise of ordinary care;

vii. By failing to discover the defective, hazardous and

unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s
propensity to discharge un-commanded while in the
possession of SIG SAUER, and during which times
employees, servants or agents of SIG SAUER had an
opportunity to inspect, service and work on the gun;

viii. By negligently failing to place a warning about mere

“vibration” of the gun in a conspicuous manner, such as on
its case, which could be easily understood by a consumer,
instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of the
user manual for the gun after several incidents of un-
commanded discharges;

ix. By including a defective and improper holster in the original

packaging with the gun;

x. By misrepresenting the dangers and hazards posed by the

gun;

xi. By failing to design a firearm that would be safe for all users
to operate under ordinary circumstances;

xii. By negligently misrepresenting that the P320 is safe when

carried with a round in the chamber;

xiii. By failing to incorporate safeties which were standard

among all of the P320s competitors;

xiv. Other negligent acts and omissions to be developed in the

course of discovery.

642. Sig Sauer knew, or should have known, that exposing users to the dangerous and

defective and hazardous conditions existing in the gun would or could give rise to serious bodily

injuries to such users, up to and including death.

129
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 130 of 143

643. The gun’s defective condition was not visible and Scoppa was not capable of

realizing the dangerous condition and could not have discovered the dangerous condition even

upon performing a reasonable inspection of the same.

644. Sig Sauer’s negligence, as alleged in this Count, directly and proximately caused

the November 29, 2021 unintended discharge and Scoppa’s injuries resulting from the accident.

645. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence set forth in this Count, Scoppa

suffered auditory injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the enjoyment of

life, incurred medical, attendant care and life care expenses for his care and treatment. These

injuries are either permanent or continuing in their nature and Scoppa will suffer such losses and

impairments in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against the Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’

fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LVI- STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

JAMES SCOPPA V. SIG SAUER

646. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-allege all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

647. Sig Sauer, by and through its agents, servants, workers, contractors, designers,

assemblers, manufacturers, sellers, suppliers and/or distributors, is strictly liable under §402(A) of

the Restatement (Second) of Torts because:

a. Sig Sauer is engaged in the regular business of designing, assembling,

manufacturing, selling, supplying, distributing, and/or placing into the stream of
commerce firearms, including the P320 that injured Plaintiff;

b. The product involved in the subject incident was marketed and/or placed in the general
stream of commerce by Sig Sauer;

130
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 131 of 143

c. The product was expected to and did reach users without substantial change in the
condition in which it was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied,
distributed and/or placed into the stream of commerce;

d. The product was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed,

and/or placed into the stream of commerce in the defective condition for the reasons
set forth above.

648. The P320 was in a defective condition as a reasonable person would conclude that

the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the P320 outweighed the burden or costs of

taking precautions.

649. Sig Sauer breached its duties, by and through their agents, servants, workers and/or

employees, and was jointly and severally careless, negligent, grossly negligent and/or reckless in

the performance of its obligations.

650. The defective condition of the P320 caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

651. Sig Sauer is therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LVII – VIOLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
JAMES SCOPPA V. SIG SAUER

652. Plaintiff adopts all preceding Paragraphs as if fully incorporated herein.

653. By its actions, described in detail in this Complaint, Sig Sauer has engaged in unfair

and deceptive acts in violation of sections 358-A:2(V) and (VII) of New Hampshire’s Consumer

Protection Act.

131
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 132 of 143

654. Sig Sauer’s actions have been willing and knowing, and the direct and proximate

cause of substantial damages to Scoppa entitled Scoppa to mandatory doubling and discretionary

trebling of his actual damages, as well as his reasonable attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LVIII – NEGLIGENCE

JERRY WYCHE V. SIG SAUER

655. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

656. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Wyche the duty to design the P320 weapon

in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to prevent it from firing without

a user trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of commerce.

657. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed Wyche the duty to manufacture, assemble,

inspect and/or test its P320s in such a manner and with the exercise of reasonable care, so as to

prevent it from firing without a trigger pull before selling the gun and placing it into the stream of

commerce.

658. At all relevant times, Sig Sauer owed a duty to unambiguously warn consumers

and/or intended users of the P320, including Wyche, of known or suspected defects that rendered

the gun unreasonably dangerous to handle or use. Upon information and belief, Sig Sauer knew or

had reason to know that the P320 posed an unreasonable risk of harm by virtue of informal and

formal claims arising from substantially similar incidents, internal testing and research, industry

publications and research, and other sources of information to be developed in discovery.

659. Sig Sauer breached the above-cited duties in various ways, including but not limited

132
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 133 of 143

to, one or more of the following negligent acts:

i. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s firing and striker assembly to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

ii. By failing to use due care in designing the P320 failing to

incorporate a manual external safety, tabbed trigger safety,
or grip safety to prevent unintended discharges;

iii. By failing to use due care in designing and manufacturing

the P320’s internal components, including its sear, and by
omitting a mechanical disconnect switch, to prevent un-
commanded discharges;

iv. By failing to issue a mandatory recall of the P320 as SIG

SAUER had done in the past with other defective products;

v. By failing to make reasonable tests and/or inspections to

discover the defective, hazardous and unreasonably
dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s propensity to
discharge un-commanded as described above;

vi. By negligently failing to unambiguously warn purchasers

and end users of the gun, including Wyche, of said defective,
hazardous and unreasonably dangerous conditions relating
to its design and manufacture, which it knew or should have
known through the exercise of ordinary care;

vii. By failing to discover the defective, hazardous and

unreasonably dangerous conditions relating to the gun’s
propensity to discharge un-commanded while in the
possession of SIG SAUER, and during which times
employees, servants or agents of SIG SAUER had an
opportunity to inspect, service and work on the gun;

viii. By negligently failing to place a warning about mere

“vibration” of the gun in a conspicuous manner, such as on
its case, which could be easily understood by a consumer,
instead of relying on changing the bottom of page 25 of the
user manual for the gun after several incidents of un-
commanded discharges;

ix. By including a defective and improper holster in the original

packaging with the gun;

133
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 134 of 143

x. By misrepresenting the dangers and hazards posed by the

gun;

xi. By failing to design a firearm that would be safe for all users
to operate under ordinary circumstances;

xii. By negligently misrepresenting that the P320 is safe when

carried with a round in the chamber;

xiii. By failing to incorporate safeties which were standard

among all of the P320s competitors;

xiv. Other negligent acts and omissions to be developed in the

course of discovery.

660. Sig Sauer knew, or should have known, that exposing users to the dangerous and

defective and hazardous conditions existing in the gun would or could give rise to serious bodily

injuries to such users, up to and including death.

661. The gun’s defective condition was not visible and Wyche was not capable of

realizing the dangerous condition and could not have discovered the dangerous condition even

upon performing a reasonable inspection of the same.

662. Sig Sauer’s negligence, as alleged in this Count, directly and proximately caused

the November 9, 2020 unintended discharge and Wyche injuries resulting from the accident.

663. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence set forth in this Count, Wyche

suffered severe physical injury, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the

enjoyment of life, physical deformity and handicap and embarrassment associated with the same,

loss of earnings and earning capacity, incurred medical, attendant care and life care expenses for

his care and treatment. These injuries are either permanent or continuing in their nature and Wyche

will suffer such losses and impairments in the future.

134
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 135 of 143

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against the Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’

fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LIX - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

JERRY WYCHE V. SIG SAUER

664. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-allege all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

665. Sig Sauer, by and through its agents, servants, workers, contractors, designers,

assemblers, manufacturers, sellers, suppliers and/or distributors, is strictly liable under §402(A) of

the Restatement (Second) of Torts because:

q. Sig Sauer is engaged in the regular business of designing, assembling,

manufacturing, selling, supplying, distributing, and/or placing into the stream of
commerce firearms, including the P320 that injured Plaintiff;

r. The product involved in the subject incident was marketed and/or placed in the general
stream of commerce by Sig Sauer;

s. The product was expected to and did reach users without substantial change in the
condition in which it was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied,
distributed and/or placed into the stream of commerce;

t. The product was designed, assembled, manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed,

and/or placed into the stream of commerce in the defective condition for the reasons
set forth above.

666. The P320 was in a defective condition as a reasonable person would conclude that

the probability and seriousness of the harm caused by the P320 outweighed the burden or costs of

taking precautions.

667. Sig Sauer breached its duties, by and through their agents, servants, workers and/or

employees, and was jointly and severally careless, negligent, grossly negligent and/or reckless in

the performance of its obligations.

135
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 136 of 143

668. The defective condition of the P320 caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

669. Sig Sauer is therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LX – VIOLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

JERRY WYCHE V. SIG SAUER

670. Plaintiff re-adopts and re-alleges all paragraphs of this pleading as if fully set forth

herein.

671. By its actions, described in detail in this Complaint, Sig Sauer has engaged in unfair

and deceptive acts in violation of sections 358-A:2(V) and (VII) of New Hampshire’s Consumer

Protection Act.

672. Sig Sauer’s actions have been willing and knowing, and the direct and proximate

cause of substantial damages to Wyche, entitled Wyche to mandatory doubling and discretionary

trebling of his actual damages, as well as his reasonable attorney fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in their favor and against Sig Sauer for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LXI – LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

MIRIAM TREBINO V. SIG SAUER

673. Plaintiff incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, the

same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

674. At all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff, Trebino, was the lawfully wedded wife of

husband-plaintiff, Francisco Armendariz, with whom she lives.

136
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 137 of 143

675. As a result of the injuries sustained by Mr. Amrendariz, wife-plaintiff Trebino has

been and will continue to be deprived of the love, assistance, companionship, consortium and

society of her husband, all to her great loss and detriment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LXII – LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

LINDSEY BROOKE MIXON V. SIG SAUER

676. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, the

same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

677. At all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff, Mixon, was the lawfully wedded wife of

husband-plaintiff, Matthew Breedon, with whom she lives.

678. As a result of the injuries sustained by Mr. Breedon, wife-plaintiff Mixon has been

and will continue to be deprived of the love, assistance, companionship, consortium and society

of her husband, all to her great loss and detriment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mixon, demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant

for compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’

fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LXIII – LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

JUAN SAN NICOLAS CHARGUALAF V. SIG SAUER

679. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, the

same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

680. At all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff, Juan San Nicolas Chargualaf, was the

lawfully wedded husband of Catherine Chargualaf, with whom he lives.

137
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 138 of 143

681. As a result of the injuries sustained by Mrs. Chargualaf , husband-plaintiff Juan San

Nicolas Chargualaf, has been and will continue to be deprived of the love, assistance,

companionship, consortium and society of his wife, all to his great loss and detriment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Juan San Nicolas Chargualaf, demands judgment in his favor and

against Defendant for compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful

interest, attorneys’ fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LXIX – LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

JADA BRAY V. SIG SAUER

682. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, the

same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

683. At all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff, Jada Bray, was the lawfully wedded wife of

William Clegg, with whom she lives.

684. As a result of the injuries sustained by Mr. Clegg, wife-plaintiff Jada Bray, has been

and will continue to be deprived of the love, assistance, companionship, consortium and society

of her husband, all to her great loss and detriment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jada Bray, demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant for

compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest, attorneys’ fees,

costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LXX – LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

DIANA DELGADO V. SIG SAUER

685. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, the

same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

686. At all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff, Diana Delgado, was the lawfully wedded wife

of husband-plaintiff, Dionicio Delgado, with whom she lives.

138
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 139 of 143

687. As a result of the injuries sustained by Mr. Delgado, wife-plaintiff Diana Delgado,

has been and will continue to be deprived of the love, assistance, companionship, consortium and

society of her husband, all to her great loss and detriment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Diana Delgado, demands judgment in her favor and against

Defendant for compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest,

attorneys’ fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LXXI– LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

JOSEPH DOFFENY V. SIG SAUER

688. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, the

same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

689. At all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff, Joseph Doffeny, was the lawfully wedded

husband of wife-plaintiff, Doffeny, with whom he lives.

690. As a result of the injuries sustained by Mrs. Doffeny, husband-plaintiff Joseph

Doffeny, has been and will continue to be deprived of the love, assistance, companionship,

consortium and society of his wife, all to his great loss and detriment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Joseph Doffeny, demands judgment in his favor and against

Defendant for compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest,

attorneys’ fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LXXII – LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

CLAYTON ELLIS V. SIG SAUER

691. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, the

same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

692. At all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff, Clayton Ellis, was the lawfully wedded

husband of wife-plaintiff, Kyla Ellis, with whom he lives.

139
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 140 of 143

693. As a result of the injuries sustained by Mrs. Ellis, husband-plaintiff Clayton Ellis,

has been and will continue to be deprived of the love, assistance, companionship, consortium and

society of his wife, all to his great loss and detriment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Clayton Ellis, demands judgment in his favor and against

Defendant for compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest,

attorneys’ fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LXXIII – LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

LYNN MARIE HALASE V. SIG SAUER

694. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, the

same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

695. At all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff, Lynn Marie Halase, was the lawfully wedded

wife of husband-plaintiff, Joseph Halase, with whom she lives.

696. As a result of the injuries sustained by Mr. Halase, wife-plaintiff Lynn Marie

Halase, has been and will continue to be deprived of the love, assistance, companionship,

consortium and society of her husband, all to her great loss and detriment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Lynn Marie Halase, demands judgment in her favor and against

Defendant for compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest,

attorneys’ fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LXXIV – LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

AMBER HENYAN V. SIG SAUER

697. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, the

same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

698. At all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff, Amber Henyan, was the lawfully wedded

wife of husband-plaintiff, Nathan Henyan, with whom she lives.

140
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 141 of 143

699. As a result of the injuries sustained by Mr. Henyan, wife-plaintiff Amber Henyan

has been and will continue to be deprived of the love, assistance, companionship, consortium and

society of her husband, all to her great loss and detriment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Amber Henyan, demands judgment in her favor and against

Defendant for compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest,

attorneys’ fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LXXV – LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

MICHAELA-KELLY JACKSON V. SIG SAUER

700. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, the

same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

701. At all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff, Michaela-Kelly Jackson, was the lawfully

wedded husband of Dwight Jackson, with whom she lives.

702. As a result of the injuries sustained by Mr. Jackson, wife-plaintiff Michaela-Kelly

Jackson, has been and will continue to be deprived of the love, assistance, companionship,

consortium and society of her husband, all to her great loss and detriment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Michaela-Kelly Jackson, demands judgment in her favor and

against Defendant for compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful

interest, attorneys’ fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LXXVI – LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

LAURA LYNN MARITATO V. SIG SAUER

703. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, the

same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

704. At all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff, Laura Lynn Maritato, was the lawfully

wedded wife of husband-plaintiff, Adam Maritato, with whom she lives.

141
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 142 of 143

705. As a result of the injuries sustained by Mr. Maritato, wife-plaintiff Laura Lynn

Maritato has been and will continue to be deprived of the love, assistance, companionship,

consortium and society of her husband, Maritato all to her great loss and detriment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Laura Lynn Maritato, demands judgment in her favor and

against Defendant for compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful

interest, attorneys’ fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LXXVII – LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

MICHELLE PARKS V. SIG SAUER

706. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, the

same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

707. At all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff, Michelle Parks was the lawfully wedded wife

of husband-plaintiff, Robert Parks, with whom she lives.

708. As a result of the injuries sustained by Mr. Parks, wife-plaintiff Michelle Parks, has

been and will continue to be deprived of the love, assistance, companionship, consortium and

society of her husband, all to her great loss and detriment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Michelle Parks, demands judgment in her favor and against

Defendant for compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful interest,

attorneys’ fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

COUNT LXXVIII– LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

LEAH MICHELLE SCOPPA V. SIG SAUER

709. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, the

same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

710. At all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff, Leah Michelle Scoppa was the lawfully

wedded wife of husband-plaintiff, James Scoppa, with whom she lives.

142
 Case 1:22-cv-00536 Document 1 Filed 11/30/22 Page 143 of 143

711. As a result of the injuries sustained by Mr. Scoppa, wife-plaintiff Leah Michelle

Scoppa, has been and will continue to be deprived of the love, assistance, companionship,

consortium and society of her husband, all to her great loss and detriment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Leah Michelle Scoppa, demands judgment in her favor and

against Defendant for compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, together with lawful

interest, attorneys’ fees, costs of suit, and all other claims available by law.

Respectfully submitted,

FERNANDO ARMENDARIZ, et al.,

By their attorneys,

SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY P.C.

Date: November 30, 2022 By: /s/ Robert Mongeluzzi

ROBERT MONGELUZZI, PA Bar #36283
LARRY BENDESKY, PA Bar # 51026
ROBERT W. ZIMMERMAN, PA Bar #208410
DANIEL L. CEISLER, PA Bar #326798
Pro Hac Vice Applications Forthcoming
One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
1650 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 496-8282
rmongeluzzi@smbb.com
lbendesky@smbb.com
rzimmerman@smbb.com
dceisler@smbb.com

and

DOUGLAS, LEONARD & GARVEY, P.C.

Date: November 30, 2022 By: /s/ Benjamin T King

BENJAMIN T. KING, NH Bar #12888
14 South Street, Suite 5
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 224-1988
benjamin@nhlawoffice.com

143