The judge allows the lawsuit against Scheels to act incorrectly

A judge of Hennepin County denied an application at the beginning of this month to dismiss a legal dispute against Scheels and one of his employees in order to put the case in court.

The lawsuit, which was submitted by Sarah van Bogart, mother of 19-year-old Jordan L. Markie, claims that the company and the employee William Ballantyne negligently entrust a pistol to died in 8301 Flying Cloud Drive on August 22, 2022.

She handed the original complaint in September 2024 one or two years after the death of her son. According to the changed complaint, Markie, who stood at a legal age for the purchase of a pistol, was allowed to handle a unloaded pistol in the firearm department of the business. Surveillance material shows that he examined the weapon for 28 seconds before it ran away, loaded it from the shop shelves with ammunition and shoots it fatally.

The complaint states that Markie looked visibly anxious and behaved unusually before he received the gun. It is also argued that Scheels did not follow the security standards of the industry, including checking the ID and the evaluation as to whether Markie was legally and emotionally suitable for the weapon. The lawsuit also accuses the company of enabling security practices for laxes and widely recognized self -murder prevention promotion in the arms trade industry.

Advertising

In a judgment of April 9, judge Karen Janisch refused to defend the defense that the lawsuit did not look a legal complaint. She decided that Van Bogart's allegations met Minnesota standards and could continue to discover.

“According to Minnesota's liberal announcement, the applicant's changed complaint, which pleads the standard, ranges a valid claim to negligent representatives,” wrote Janisch in her 16-page decision.

The judge emphasized that the pistol while was unloaded was operable, was equipped with a magazine and that the ammunition in the shop was easy to access – conditions that could cause a predictable risk of damage. She also found that the employee's intention of providing the weapon did not find whether the responsibility according to Minnesota Law was negligent.

Scheels and Ballantyne submitted a formal answer on April 21 and denied all allegations of negligence. Her lawyers argued that the incident was unpredictable that Markie – although under 21 – was allowed to have a firearm under 21 and that the protection of the law on lawful trade in ARM protects weapons from certain civilian claims.

Advertising

In a joint registration of April 29, the lawyers gave the court a discovery plan for both sides – the formal procedure in which both parties exchange evidence and identify witnesses. The plan describes a schedule for evidence of the collection of evidence and the disclosure of experts, whereby the entire discovery is completed by April 30, 2026. The parties estimate that the case on or after August 3, 2026 is ready for an attempt.

Markie describes the original complaint as a talented pianist and composer, whose life was canceled by an impulsive action, which, according to his family, would have been prevented if Scheels implemented stricter security protocols.

Van Bogart strives for damages due to claims for negligent commissioning and illegal death and claims that the death of her son could have been prevented by stricter security measures. Officially, a negotiation date was officially planned.

Lawyers for Scheels and Van Bogart did not respond to inquiries about comments.