Cinemark Wants Colorado Theater Shooting Victims To Pay $700K In Fees

Buffy Summers

Buffy Summers

Yataro
Staff member
Joined
Nov 20, 2001
Messages
35,079
Location
The City of Angels
Sineya
by Dominic Patten

Over a month after a state jury declared the nation’s third largest exhibition chain was not responsible for the fatal Colorado theater shooting at the Aurora Century 16 multiplex, Cinemark wants the victims to pay now up.

With paperwork filed last week, the chain is seeking $699,187.13 in legal fees and other costs from the nearly 30-plaintiffs in the consolidated action. Those plaintiffs are victims and surviving family members of those killed at the July 20, 2012 fatal shooting rampage by James Holmes at a late night Aurora screening of The Dark Night Rises.

As is true in many jurisdictions across the nation, state law in Colorado allows the winning side in a civil case to seek costs. After years of legal battling, Cinemark won the state case on May 19 when the 6-person jury delivered a unanimous verdict that the chain was not partially liable for the massacre that killed 12 and left 70 injured.

Cinemark did not respond to request for comment today on its latest legal moves in regards to the tragedy. Plaintiffs’ lawyer Marc Bern said last month that there likely would be an appeal of the verdict. Which means, this fees and costs filing could be a heavyhanded ploy by the chain in an attempt to halt any such appeal in return for dropping its own financial action.

On June 24, Cinemark was successful in having a federal case on the matter dismissed.“The Court concludes that a reasonable jury could not plausibly find that Cinemark’s actions or inactions were a substantial factor in causing this tragedy,” U.S. District Judge R. Brook Jackson wrote in his ruling. Cinemark was awarded “reasonable costs” in that case too but have not sought out any payment as of yet.

Source: Deadline
 
Like Porsche being sued three different times by three different family members after the Paul Walker crash. Person A lost the case so person B sued, person B lost so person C sued. Some lawyers are the type to prey on the victims in an attempt to win a payday.
 
At the end of the day, the true 'victims' here, are the victims themselves and their families.... I appreciate they want someone to take responsibility for the shooter's crimes, but only he can, and I believe he killed himself?

There is a terrible blame culture going on everywhere. Everyone wants to blame someone. I feel sorry for the families, but how can the cinema ever be deemed responsible for this man's actions?
 
Skanky Vamp
Skanky Vamp
He did not kill himself. The trail was a big deal.
Athena said:
how can the cinema ever be deemed responsible for this man's actions?
Click to expand...
It wasn't because they held them responsible it was because they felt as though they should have had more security to prevent mass shootings when, up until that point, there had never been a mass shooting at a movie theater before. They sued them saying they were negligent in their preparation for such an act.
 
At least they were sensible and found the theater chain not liable. I think if more states would make the losing party cover the others legal fees you would see less and less frivolous lawsuits.
 
brinkster130
brinkster130
They should totally start doing that
Mr. Pole said:
I think if more states would make the losing party cover the others legal fees you would see less and less frivolous lawsuits.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There'd be more to loose then with frivolous lawsuits, might, might, just make people think twice about suing.

I understand wanting to find someone responsible, but the "let's sue them" knee-jerk reaction doesn't seem helpful in any way.
 
Mr. Pole said:
They sued them saying they were negligent in their preparation for such an act.
Click to expand...

If there had been a sign up outside the theater saying, "Welcome. Your safety is guaranteed as long as you remain in our area," then, might agree that they could be held responsible. They didn't, so they weren't. They have every right to sue for expenses, but, in my opinion, they should be suing the lawyers, who almost certainly knew that there was no basis for such a suit, not their clients.
 
Regardless of whether people think that the theater was liable, this is a shady move which just may end up backfiring on them badly.
 
Let me see if I understood this, guy goes into theatre and shoots a load of people. The families of the victims and the survivors sued the theatre's owners for being responsible, and now the theatre's owners are trying to get their money back, money they paid out for a defence?
If that is right the families of the victims and the survivors should be forced to pay up, then the theatre owners should sue the lawyers and those who took on the case for at least $50 million for the anguish caused.
Then the justice system that allowed the victims families and survivors to sue the theatre's owners in the first place.
 
All of this "X sues Y" business just detracts from the fact that a terrorist, whether working for some organization or acting independently, saw a place where he could safely kill a bunch of innocent people. That's the problem that needs to be addressed, not who owned the property or what type and make of weapon was used.
 
I don't think there was any fault on the theatre for the shooting. Like @Athena I think we live too much in a culture of blame. I think maybe that is part of the griaving process, but its not ideal. But this is really low of the cinema considering what the families have been through. They found not quilty and that should be that.
 
Mr Trick said:
But this is really low of the cinema considering what the families have been through. They found not guilty and that should be that.
Click to expand...

If it were just about the court decision, yes, that should be enough. However, they had to pay a group of lawyers a substantial amount of money in order to obtain that court decision, which would have been unnecessary if the families hadn't filed the charges in the first place. They have every right to recover that money. My only objection in the matter is that the family's' lawyers almost certainly knew that they had no case to begin with, but continued on, anyway. Or, more likely, some group with a political agenda, seeking to gain publicity, stirred up the whole mess to begin with. THEY should be the ones having to foot the bills.
 
white avenger said:
If it were just about the court decision, yes, that should be enough. However, they had to pay a group of lawyers a substantial amount of money in order to obtain that court decision, which would have been unnecessary if the families hadn't filed the charges in the first place. They have every right to recover that money. My only objection in the matter is that the family's' lawyers almost certainly knew that they had no case to begin with, but continued on, anyway. Or, more likely, some group with a political agenda, seeking to gain publicity, stirred up the whole mess to begin with. THEY should be the ones having to foot the bills.
Click to expand...

But not everything should be about money. There is a moral thing here. If I was in the cinema's position I would say I don't care how much money we paid for the lawyers, these families have been through enough already. It really is that simple for me.
 
Because movie theaters are a dying business. 3/4 of a million dollars is a lot of money to just write off. And to be fair, the families didn't have a problem trying to get money out of the tragedy...
 
Buffy Summers said:
Because movie theaters are a dying business. 3/4 of a million dollars is a lot of money to just write off. And to be fair, the families didn't have a problem trying to get money out of the tragedy...
Click to expand...

I would like to see statistics that shown that movie theaters are a dying business. To me people still pack out multiplexes. In England at least cinema were one of the few things that weren't hit by the recession. Yes, but the families lost loved ones, the cinema owner did not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom