U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-03-2016, 09:00 PM
 
6,554 posts, read 3,701,789 times
Reputation: 13542

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by adriver View Post
Yahoo!

I think this is complete crap. I didn't agree that the victims should be suing the theatre because they didn't have enough security; you can't plan for a psychotic gunman to be out to kill people everywhere you go, but personally, this is just scum of the gene pool LOW.. I hope people start boycotting this theatre because of this move. They should be happy they won, and let everyone move on with there lives.
As mean as it sounds, it's legal and entirely appropriate. It doesn't matter that the defendant who incurred the costs is rich, compared to the plaintiffs.

Think of you being sued for something and winning. You would have incurred a lot of expenses and legal fees in defending yourself. You have a right to have the people who sued you pay for those expenses & fees.

This is something for people to think about when they embark on litigation. It is very expensive and lengthy. A plaintiff should have to consider the cost of the defense when making the decision to sue him.

I'm going to guess, though, that along the way Cinemark offered to settle, which was rejected. I don't know that, but it's so often the case, based solely on dollars and cents. If Cinemark could settle out for less than it would cost them to defend themselves through trial, it probably would have made an offer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-03-2016, 09:03 PM
 
6,554 posts, read 3,701,789 times
Reputation: 13542
Quote:
Originally Posted by margaretBartle View Post
Maybe, but I think the real take-away on this is that if you are being pressured by some greedy lawyer to make a frivilous law suit, you should be aware that there are real costs to loosing.

This was a such a bogus lawsuit. Like every theatre in the country should have a SWAT team on hand for all showings, in case a crazy person decides to start blowing people up? Gimme a break! That lawsuit was sheer greed, and the theatre was right to sue for damages.
Courts throw out frivolous lawsuits. This lawsuit was not thrown out, so it wasn't frivolous. For a lawsuit to remain in court, the court must find that there is some rule of law that's applicable, and some indication that the plaintiff could win, no matter how slight (i.e., SOME evidence).

It is standard practice after a lawsuit is filed for the defendant to move the court to rule the lawsuit as frivolous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2016, 09:07 PM
 
6,554 posts, read 3,701,789 times
Reputation: 13542
Quote:
Originally Posted by adriver View Post
No, this has nothing to do with corporate America. They have the right, but its certainly in poor taste, and id be willing to bet they could eat the costs without a care compared to the families who may have lost the bread-winners.... Unless.



I never would have considered that it could have just been some shyster lawyer who talked all these people into suing in there time of grief. If it were the case, I guess then I hope the lawyer would have to pay back all the legal fees (if he took the case pro bono or something); but if this was something I see as grieving family members did, (and you know it probably wasn't all of them originally behind the idea, just all included to strengthen a case), then I think the theater should have just cut them some slack.
People are responsible for their own decisions. The person has to GO to a lawyer in the first place and meet with him, in order to get talked into anything.

I'm guessing that Cinemark offered a settlement at some point, and that it was rejected, so this is why Cinemark is asking for those fees and expenses. BTW, you have to prove to the court that all those fees and expenses are legitimate and were necessary. Even if Cinemark gets the order for plaintiffs to pay the fees, it almost certainly won't be for the amount asked for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2016, 09:41 PM
 
1,941 posts, read 1,323,857 times
Reputation: 3235
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSD610 View Post
So it is just fine for families of the victims to sue a business and cost that business thousands of dollars?
Why didn't the families of the victims sue the shooters families?
NO, and EXACTLY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpollen View Post
Courts throw out frivolous lawsuits. This lawsuit was not thrown out, so it wasn't frivolous. For a lawsuit to remain in court, the court must find that there is some rule of law that's applicable, and some indication that the plaintiff could win, no matter how slight (i.e., SOME evidence).

It is standard practice after a lawsuit is filed for the defendant to move the court to rule the lawsuit as frivolous.
Well, I think based on what we know, I would think the entire concept is frivolous. Its not something you could ever expect, reasonably plan for, and certainly not the theatres fault.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bpollen View Post
People are responsible for their own decisions. The person has to GO to a lawyer in the first place and meet with him, in order to get talked into anything.

I'm guessing that Cinemark offered a settlement at some point, and that it was rejected, so this is why Cinemark is asking for those fees and expenses. BTW, you have to prove to the court that all those fees and expenses are legitimate and were necessary. Even if Cinemark gets the order for plaintiffs to pay the fees, it almost certainly won't be for the amount asked for.
Wasn't there 20 parties in the lawsuit and 13 victims? I would even think that some of them were talked into it. Some were looking for money "to help them grieve" Some are going to be caused financial troubles, and some were probably talked into it (especially to help the other victims' case).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2016, 12:04 AM
 
1,831 posts, read 2,124,067 times
Reputation: 2602
Fact People must provide their own security.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2016, 12:52 AM
 
244 posts, read 126,125 times
Reputation: 241
Gun free zones anyone?


We still love them don't we .....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2016, 02:56 AM
 
Location: Tucson for awhile longer
8,872 posts, read 13,497,465 times
Reputation: 29030
Lawsuits are out of control! Victims are sue-happy! People just can't live with the randomness of their misfortune!

Until it's YOU who is injured. Or someone you love is killed. Then "that's different."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2016, 05:47 AM
 
5,215 posts, read 5,129,489 times
Reputation: 6215
Quote:
Originally Posted by adriver View Post

I couldn't tell you how long, (at least the last year), but my local theatre and grocery store both have uniformed police officers out front by the entrance. Not always, but every day at night.

Yikes. Where do you live? I live in a major city and I have NEVER had uniformed police officers by the entrance of a movie theater. No security either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2016, 08:07 AM
 
1,941 posts, read 1,323,857 times
Reputation: 3235
Quote:
Originally Posted by city living View Post
Yikes. Where do you live? I live in a major city and I have NEVER had uniformed police officers by the entrance of a movie theater. No security either.
Phoenix, and out of the 15 or so grocery stores within a couple miles of me, there is only one that has one. Its not in a bad area either. Same with the theatre, although, I don't recall about the theatre, it may just be an armed security guard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2016, 10:23 AM
 
6,762 posts, read 3,665,047 times
Reputation: 17886
When we lived in Colorado, it was well known for SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). Essentially large companies would sue someone over some issue, not because of the actual issue, but to send a message. The message was: "We have deep pockets and can afford to keep you tied up in court for years, even if we lose. But you will be bankrupt from lawyer fees long before that. So don't cross us."


It was very effective and morally bankrupt. Yes, they are sending a message.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top