Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Aurora Shooting Survivors Must Pay Cinemark's Court Costs

This is topic Aurora Shooting Survivors Must Pay Cinemark's Court Costs in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007431

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-31-2016, 11:59 AM:

They only owe 700K in attorneys fees....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/58da250c-2def-3359-858d-08d52c7f3195/survivors-of-the-aurora.html

After a settlement deal fell apart, four survivors of the 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting are left having to pay the Cinemark chain at least $700,000.

The failed settlement and financial repercussions were laid out Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times, which pieced together the story through interviews with people involved in the talks between the owners of the Century Aurora 16 mutliplex and 41 plaintiffs, including survivors and relatives of victims. A federal judge overseeing their case had advised the plaintiffs that they should settle with Cinemark within 24 hours. Another group of survivors had filed a state lawsuit, and a jury decided Cinemark could not have foreseen the shooting, which left 12 dead and more than 70 injured during a showing of The Dark Knight Rises. Because of that ruling, the judge said, he would most likely also find the chain not liable for the shooting.

As plaintiff Marcus Weaver told the Times, the group had to decide if they were willing to accept $150,000 split among 41 plaintiffs. He said he didn't think it was enough, but was satisfied that the company was going to have to take new measures to protect guests. The plaintiffs also knew if they rejected the deal and the case moved forward, under Colorado law they would be responsible for Cinemark's court fees. As Cinemark drafted a press release announcing the settlement, one unidentified plaintiff rejected the deal. Weaver and 36 other plaintiffs quickly removed themselves from the suit, but four stayed on, and the judge ruled the next day in favor of Cinemark. The state court case cost $699,000, and the federal case is expected to be more.

Several plaintiffs and attorneys told the Times they were upset with how the state case was handled, and some federal plaintiffs were so suspicious of the weak case that rumors started to spread that Cinemark was actually behind it and wanted it to fail. Weaver, who married and had a child after the shooting, told the Times he is trying to move on with his life, but he can't shake what happened with the federal case. "Theaters aren't any safer," he said. "It's almost like everything was for naught." Catherine Garcia

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-31-2016, 03:42 PM:

As I pointed out on Facebook, the LA Times article is amazingly biased and unfair. This article here is more balanced, but still contains the dopey statement at the end about theaters not being any safer.

How can something that is already almost 100% safe be any safer? It's not necessary. Hell, these days SCHOOLS are less safe than movie theaters.

I'll bet the same guy would be griping up a storm if you told him his movie ticket prices were going to increase by a couple of bucks to pay for armed security guards to be stationed in all auditoriums. But he probably has stopped going out to the movies anyway.

Those people will probably never pay the fees anyway, so the whole thing is a big pile of nothing.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 08-31-2016, 08:02 PM:

I don't know that I would ever call movie theatres "safe". You're putting a bunch of strangers together in a dark room with virtually no security - and what little there is often comes down to high school students and untrained management. We have doors that can't be opened from the outside and video surveillance, but the doors can be disabled and the video usually only matters after the fact.

That being said, I accept what risk there may be. I realize that in a free society there is no such thing a complete safety. As with entering any public situation I weight the risk and take it upon myself.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-04-2016, 12:55 AM:

IMHO the plaintiffs' attorneys have a lot to answer for over their decision to take this case. It was clearly obvious to anyone looking at this who was not involved in it that the case was never going to succeed. They were effectively arguing that Cinemark had a duty of care to provide airport-grade security, something which no other movie theater operator has ever done and which would be neither feasible nor reasonable to attempt. This lawsuit should never have got as far as it did.

And now, as well as mourning the loss of their relatives, these families have to find hundreds of thousands each.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 09-04-2016, 12:24 PM:

I'd be curious to know just what the attorneys' contract with the plaintiffs stated and if it offered any protection for the plaintiffs in just such a case.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 09-04-2016, 03:56 PM:

From what I understand, Cinemark has agreed to waive these fees if the plaintiffs sign a settlement waiving their right to an appeal. Seems like a best case scenario all the way around.

Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 09-04-2016, 11:32 PM:

So per Colorado Law these plaintiffs are responsible for court fees since they lost? This makes the whole "boycott cinemark for going after the families" even dumber since it is LAW in the state.

Posted by John Roddy (Member # 7348) on 09-05-2016, 11:52 AM:

Yet another case of misinformation spreading by conveniently leaving out the key facts. I've seen a pretty even balance of people jumping for the torches and pitchforks (which is a pretty stupid idea already. What if you trip or something? You're falling face first into fire and spikes. Think it through, people!), and folks who actually did the unthinkable and read the full story. Yeah, people do that. Surprised me too. They all seem to understand that it's not quite as simple as writing off Cinemark as the bad guys here. Reminds me of the classic McDonald's coffee lawsuit. Just knowing the full details is all it takes to make sense of it.

I'm still of the opinion that Cinemark is just going to use this as a bargaining chip to convince those few last stragglers to drop this pointless battle and just move on. I sincerely doubt they even want to collect the money in the first place.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-06-2016, 04:35 AM:

The thing is...Cinemark didn't "go after the families." The families lawyers got the families to go after Cinemark.

As for the Hot Coffee thing. I've heard, read, seen the documentary and even was in a Q/A session with the plaintiffs on the matter (I didn't ask the questions, just an observer). I remain convinced that the Plaintiffs should not have prevailed. McDonalds did nothing wrong and violated no laws on temperature of coffee. The elderly woman took the coffee cup out of the holder, put it between her legs in a moving car and then "somehow" the lid became dislodged and got on her legs (soaked into her pants and, as such kept the hot liquid on her legs causing the burns. NONE OF WHICH was McDonald's fault. Yes, it was tragic that she was hurt and the pictures are nasty but that still doesn't make it McDonald's fault. The people that sided for the plaintiffs saw an old woman get hurt and a deep pocket corporation as the facilitator. It was a horrible decision. It blamed an entity that did nothing wrong. Just like in this Cinemark case. Cinemark was not operating their theatre in a manner that was out of the norm of any like business and yet were blamed not for violating any laws or codes of conduct or anything. Just for operating the theatre that the nutjobs chose to kill people in. One can have sympathy for the families without blaming an innocent 3rd party.

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 09-07-2016, 04:15 PM:

Since there's no "upvote" on a forum, I'll just say: well said, Steve.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-07-2016, 10:57 PM:

So did they drop their appeal? It really shouldn't take them months and months to decide this. Attorneys are probably pushing them to go ahead.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-13-2016, 05:46 PM:

There's no glory here for anybody. Everybody loses, except, the lawyers... Cinemark was clearly not at fault here. If they want "justice", they're clearly looking at the wrong place.

But, maybe it's best if Cinemark would settle with those survivors and relatives by not claiming those costs from them, and in return end the case. Cinemark clearly doesn't have to admit any wrongdoing, but still reaches out to the survivors and relatives. Those $700K shouldn't be a big issue for Cinemark and it would clearly be less than the damage created by all the negative press they're still receiving.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-14-2016, 10:40 PM:

quote:

Cinemark drops request for Aurora shooting victims to pay $700G in legal fees

CENTENNIAL, Colo. — Cinemark has dropped its request that victims of a 2012 shooting at a Colorado movie theater pay nearly $700,000 in legal fees after they unsuccessfully sued the theater chain.

The Denver Post reports Tuesday that Cinemark withdrew the request after victims agreed not to appeal the verdict against them.

Cinemark's lawyers said in court documents they wanted to resolve the matter without more costs to either side. Colorado courts allow the winning side of a court case to recover legal fees.

Jurors in May ruled in Cinemark's favor over victims who argued the chain should have done more to prevent the attack that killed 12 people.

A judge also dismissed a similar lawsuit in federal court, saying Cinemark's lack of security was not a substantial factor in the deaths.