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

[Logan0327]

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

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 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 in the July 20, 2012 shooting at the Aurora theater during a screening of The Dark Night Rises.

Some are parents of those who gave up their lives saving others in the theater and others are those who were badly wounded.

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 heavy-handed 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.

http://deadline.com/2016/06/cinemar...ting-legal-fees-dark-knight-rises-1201781674/

 

[Greens]

Are they stupid? Don't they have PR people?

 

[Teelie]

I don't see how Cinemark is responsible for it.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Movie Theaters: "Film attendance is down and we have no idea why!"

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

There's no way this backfires against the theater chain.

No way.

 

[Rocketman]

Yikes.

I'm already discouraged to go to theaters as it is. Here's another reason on top of talking, texting, and seat kicking.

 

[Mustang69]

I'm willing to bet, as it mentions in the quoted article, that's just a way to keep the Plaintiff's from filing an appeal. This is truly a *****e-move if they do actually pursue them for the fees.

 

[Teelie]

I just realized I misread the article. Somehow I misread it to mean they wanted the shooter to pay fees. Yes, it is a *****e move to sue for fees of the victims but I still stand by they should never have sued the theater in the first place.

 

[Lencho01]

A *****e move, sure. But, not entirely a stupid one.

 

[chaseter]

If you sue me and you lose, why can't I sue you back for my out of pocket court costs? It's the same here. It's greed on both parts. This suit shouldn't have even happened.

 

[SpideyInATree]

If you sue me and you lose, why can't I sue you back for my out of pocket court costs? It's the same here. It's greed on both parts. This suit shouldn't have even happened.

This is pretty much what I was going to say as well.

If the shoe were on the other foot those people would be counter suing in two seconds. These people were either pushed by a lawyer to do this or they are just greedy. Sucks what happened but you CANNOT hold the movie theater liable for a tragedy like that.

 

[cheungcheung]

Not theater's fault at all. It's like blaming the Istanbul airport or Pulse nightclub....

 

[Marvolo]

Theaters are supposed to make sure the one way exits are shut. Those doors dont have outside handles so as long as they are shut no one can get in. This shooter propped the door open which allowed him to get back in.

My theater has an employee walk into the auditorium every 20 minutes and check the exits and initial the paper on the door. If an employee fails to do that and something happens it opens the theater up to a lawsuit.

The victims have suffered enough and that theater chain can afford to eat the cost of the legal fees. If they had a bit compassion in their hearts they would just let this go and be thankful this ended in their favor. Hell, the positive PR would probably be better for them than countersuing the victims.

 

[danoyse]

Deadline quoted what I posted on Twitter about it...

Yes, obviously Cinemark is within their legal right to go after them for legal fees. But from a PR standpoint, hitting up the families of people who were murdered in your movie theater for legal fees is a dick move.

Eat the costs on the one, Cinemark. There is no version of this story were you look like you’re doing the right thing here.

 

[Schlosser85]

Sounds like greed on both parts.

I don't know how the theater was supposedly responsible for the shooting, but however unwarranted the lawsuit may have been, Cinemark should have eaten the costs for PR purposes if nothing else.

 

[KillerMcQueen]

Sounds like greed on both parts.

I don't know how the theater was supposedly responsible for the shooting, but however unwarranted the lawsuit may have been, Cinemark should have eaten the costs for PR purposes if nothing else.

Yeah, they've taken a situation that was already lose-lose and made it worse.

 

[cheungcheung]

Why does everyone just want to sue everyone for everything in the US?

 

[danoyse]

Yeah, they've taken a situation that was already lose-lose and made it worse.

And they're most likely doing this to get the victims to drop their appeal in this case. If they drop the appeal, Cinemark will likely promise not to hit them up for the legal fees in return.

Cinemark doesn't need the money, they just want to drop the legal case.

It makes sense, but the PR damage is done. The lawsuit never should have been filed in the first place, but this move leaves them looking like a company just trying to antagonize victims of a mass shooting.

 

[chaseter]

Why does everyone just want to sue everyone for everything in the US?

Because people are greedy and want a quick dollar. It drives costs up for everyone else and wastes a ton of time for the court system (which are taxpayer funded).

 

[NHawk19]

And they're most likely doing this to get the victims to drop their appeal in this case. If they drop the appeal, Cinemark will likely promise not to hit them up for the legal fees in return.

Cinemark doesn't need the money, they just want to drop the legal case.

It makes sense, but the PR damage is done. The lawsuit never should have been filed in the first place, but this move leaves them looking like a company just trying to antagonize victims of a mass shooting.

^This.

It's a negotiation tactic. The victims lawyers may have even released this info to the media in order to gain some kind of leverage.

 

[warhorse78]

Because people are greedy and want a quick dollar. It drives costs up for everyone else and wastes a ton of time for the court system (which are taxpayer funded).

Also, I don't know about you, but when watching local news TV, or passing billboards on the highway or on the city bus, they are mostly advertising for law firms........ or hospitals or strip clubs or the casinos.... interesting, it's the stuff that's making all of my friends go broke. Hmmmmm

 

[squeekness]

If you sue me and you lose, why can't I sue you back for my out of pocket court costs? It's the same here. It's greed on both parts. This suit shouldn't have even happened.

Well, it's possible the families were trying to recoup medical costs, the survivors anyhow. Can't get it from the shooter, he's a schmo in jail now.