Tactical Tailor

Fireclean Issues Update Regarding Lawsuit Against George Fennell and Steel Shield for False Advertising

Today saw action in the court room regarding Fireclean’s federal lawsuit against suit against George Fennell and Steel Shield for false advertising. Fennell had petitioned the court to dismiss the case. However, presiding Judge Ellis saw enough evidence to go forward with the suit.

Consequently, Fireclean issued this statement on Facebook regarding this order.

FireClean LLC is pleased to inform its customers, dealers, and followers that Judge T.S. Ellis of the Eastern District of Virginia denied George Fennell and Steel Shield’s Motion to Transfer Venue and Motion to Dismiss this morning. Judge Ellis ruled that *all* of the Defendants’ false statements, including statements that equate FIREClean® to Crisco™ and Wesson™ oils, are actionable under principles of defamation and false advertising. The case proceeds.

We would like to thank everyone for their support and wish you a safe and happy Independence Day weekend!

Below is a copy of the order.

fireclean vs fennell

Fireclean has also filed a separate lawsuit against Vuurwapen Blog, its owner Andrew Touhy and Everett Baker alleging defamation for a sereies of articles published on Vuurwapen Blog regarding the Fireclean firearm lubricant.

In response, Andrew Touhy’s legal team has made a very compelling case that the current venue in Virginia is not where the trial should be held and have asked to have it dismissed. That question will most likely be settled by the court later this month.

Regardless, as Fennell implicated Tuohy in a Facebook post, the judge’s ruling in the Fennell case assuredly means that Tuohy will be included in the discovery phase of the Fennell case which should commence shortly. Consequently, efforts to stave off discovery in Tuohy’s suit look to be stymied.

Tags: , , , , ,

21 Responses to “Fireclean Issues Update Regarding Lawsuit Against George Fennell and Steel Shield for False Advertising”

  1. PPGMD says:

    “Regardless, as Fennell implicated Tuohy in a Facebook post, the judge’s ruling in the Fennell case assuredly means that Tuohy will be included in the discovery phase of the Fennell case which should commence shortly. Consequently, efforts to stave off discovery in Tuohy’s suit look to be stymied.”

    Maybe, maybe not. Since you didn’t cover it I’ll mention it, the judge slapped down Fireclean in the Fireclean v Touhy case. Calling the overly broad discovery attempts to be a fishing expedition. Which is what you were alluding to when you mentioned that Touhy was attempting to stave off discovery.

    Typically discovery on third parties to a case (which is what Touhy is in the Fennell case) are much more limited than what is allowed when you are actually a party in the case. So if that information is a “fishing expedition” when Touhy is the defendant in a case than it is even less likely Fireclean will get that information via the Fennell case.

    • SSD says:

      Keep your fingers crossed, but the judge in the Touhy case’s “fishing expedition” comment was in regard to Fireclean’s request for discovery to establish venue for the case and not in general.

      Discovery in the Fennell case will be an entirely different matter and you just never know what they’ll find.

      • PPGMD says:

        I think you have me figured wrong, I don’t support Fireclean in Fireclean v Touhy. When you are arguing one scientific test vs another in a defamation case you don’t have much of a case.

        I don’t really care about either party in Fireclean v Fennell but I think out of the two cases it is the one that Fireclean has the best chance of winning, but when it comes to damages things aren’t so cut in dry because of the reports on Touhy’s site.

        Fireclean was also asking for financial information too. But asking for in depth information on the number visitors from Virginia has little relevance, it as an internet site are they going to move the case to which ever place the Blog gets the most visitors from? Touhy can admit that he has some visitors from Virginia, which should be enough if the judge even wants to consider internet visitors when establishing venue. Civil cases are less CSI and more business like.

        • SSD says:

          I know you’re pulling for Tuohy. Tuohy’s motion for dismissal was 90% venue driven. A lot of resources were expended attempting to keep the case out of Virginia. Fennell tried as well and it didn’t work. The question is, if Tuohy gets his way, will Fireclean file in Arizona? I think I know the answer to that.

  2. Dellis says:

    This would of been avoided had these guys just said…” In my opinion this stuff resembles crisco”

    It will be interesting to see how this effects how the arm chair commandos of the intranet handle future events where products are tested. Will people be prevented from posting negative reviews up of products, tools, cars, clothes etc?

    Scary to think that can happen

    • SSD says:

      I haven’t seen it stop anyone yet.

    • PPGMD says:

      If you actually read the Vuurwapen articles he never says Fireclean = Crisco *or insert other Vegetable Oil Brand here* The closest is was saying something to the effect of “Fireclean has properties similar to Canola oil” (paraphrasing as I don’t feel like finding the articles) or that “Fireclean is a modern unsaturated vegetable oil similar to what you is used for cooking.” And IIRC the statements were quotes the professors looking at the results, not by Touhy.

      George Fennell is the only one that directly called Fireclean Crisco or Wesson.

      • SSD says:

        Dude, anything you say means absolutely nothing. It’s in court now. They’ll decide what he said.

        • PPGMD says:

          I am well aware that the comments here will have absolutely no effect on the lawsuit (though I thought it was hilarious that the lawyer for Fireclean presented random comments in their exhibits).

          But the fact remains that what I paraphrased will be front and center in the case. At no point does Touhy call Fireclean Crisco except in quoting internet drama (which Fennell was involved in), which why Touhy started this whole series to debunk.

          • SSD says:

            I’m sure Tuohy would appreciate your legal advice.

            • PPGMD says:

              He doesn’t need it, the firm he hired is well regarded in these types of cases. Nor was I attempting to give legal advice, simply my opinion on the case. Which you have done several times in the past.

              • SSD says:

                Like I said, cry all you want, he got himself where he is and now its up to the court to decide who is right.

                • Dellis says:

                  I am curious, has the sales of fireclean been negatively effected by all this?

                  I ask not to stir the pot but am truly curious.

                  • SSD says:

                    Fireclean allegedes it has and it has been covered in the linked articles.

                    • Mohican says:

                      And how is that if their product is so good and game changer?

                      I wonder of this will end in a thorough research about FireClean composition.

  3. Marcus says:

    ‘We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto.”

    I wouldn’t be waiving the victory flag just yet. There is a pretty big legal hill to climb.

    I always thought the motion to dismiss was a Hail Mary. There is just not enough grounds to support dismissal. In fact there was more to the converse based on the specific claims.

    Proving those charges is another matter. 15 U.S.C. 1125(b) has various tests and exclusions not the least of which are related to First Amendment protections (the material nature of statements/content. Are they editorial, satire, etc.), are they indeed “false” (the materiality of the defendants claims and how they were developed), was there actually an attempt to deceive (the basis and nature of the claims) et al.

    I have no dog in this fight because in the end there seems to be a lot of losers. But reviewing case law and specific facts, it doesn’t appear to be encouraging for the plaintiffs.

    But who knows. I’ve been wrong before…

    • Bill says:

      Motions to dismiss are often filed to protect the attorney involved from later allegations of malpractice. They may know that the motion won’t carry, but if they don’t make every effort, within reason, to represent their client’s interest it can come back later to haunt them, or raise an appealable issue.

      That’s why in every single criminal trial, and I know that this is civil, immediately after the prosecution rests the defense will move to dismiss based on the grounds that the prosecution didn’t prove anything, no matter how far-fetched. The judge over-rules it and on goes the show.

  4. CV76 says:

    I don’t care what it is, it’s sticky trash juice after a few months sitting on a firearm.

    • Diddler says:

      This! ^

      I’ve met the man himself numerous times. His attitude is very, well it causes you to not want to give him money for his crappy lube that makes guns stop working if you put it certain places or leave the gun alone for a few weeks depending on ambient temp and humidity. It probably has a lot more to do with those things that make sales decrease rather than dorks like me on the Internet spouting off.

  5. Sierra5 says:

    Regardless of anything else, FC= really expensive gun oil. There are very good, more cost effective alternatives to choose from. With that fact alone, why would you choose to pay more for any product?

  6. El Guapo says:

    I’ve tried a lot of fancy and not so fancy weapons lubes, and Fireclean works the best. I shoot a lot suppressed, and it doesn’t burn off as fast as the others yet cleans up very easy (which is a bigger deal when shooting my issue weapon vs personal). It basically wipes clean.

    I hope FC comes out ahead in this suit, but doesn’t become too fixated if it doesn’t go their way. I’m 50/50 on if they should’ve have filed this in the 1st place as opposed to just showing the science behind it.