- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Cinemark Bills Colorado Shooting Victims 700k for Legal Fees
Posted on 6/30/16 at 2:15 pm
Posted on 6/30/16 at 2:15 pm
LINK
quote:
Last month, a Colorado state jury officially declared that Cinemark, which is the third largest theater chain in America, is not to be held responsible for the fatal Colorado theater shooting carried out by James Holmes in 2012. Now, Cinemark is asking for all of the victims involved with the case to pay legal fees for what happened the night of July 20 nearly four years ago.
quote:
The chain is asking for $699,187.13 in legal fees and other costs, sending the bill directly to the nearly 30 plaintiffs in the case, working in consolidated action. The victims and the surviving family members of those killed are now being held responsible for these costs that have accumulated through this ordeal.
quote:
State law in Colorado allows the winning side in a civil case to seek redemption for acquired legal costs and court fees. This is true of many states throughout the U.S. Cinemark won their state case on May 19 going up against a 6-person jury. The jury delivered a unanimous verdict that stated the chain was in no way responsible for the massacre, not even partially. Thus far, Cinemark has not responded to requests for comment.
15
Posted on 6/30/16 at 2:18 pm to tduecen
holy frick....
if they dont drop that shite I'm never going to a Cinemark again.
if they dont drop that shite I'm never going to a Cinemark again.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 2:19 pm to Dr RC
may be more of an OT topic but it is about movies
Posted on 6/30/16 at 2:19 pm to Dr RC
quote:
if they dont drop that shite I'm never going to a Cinemark again.
when this news hits the mainstream they are going to get so much negative backlash they'll have no choice but to drop it.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 2:19 pm to tduecen
Poor judgment by Cinemark, but also poor judgment by the victims to try and sue Cinemark.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 2:19 pm to tduecen
I may be going to hell, but I'm fine with it. Those are costs the theater incurred through no fault of their own according to the 6 person jury.
It would be more appropriate to send it to the plaintiffs attorneys, I guess, but they would turn around and send it to the plaintiffs as well.
It would be more appropriate to send it to the plaintiffs attorneys, I guess, but they would turn around and send it to the plaintiffs as well.
This post was edited on 6/30/16 at 2:20 pm
Posted on 6/30/16 at 2:20 pm to tduecen
Is this one of those "they have to do it for legal" reasons or something?
If not, that's just mean. Granted, it wasn't Cinemark's fault either, but as a multimillion dollar company, just be nice and eat the cost.
If not, that's just mean. Granted, it wasn't Cinemark's fault either, but as a multimillion dollar company, just be nice and eat the cost.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 2:20 pm to tduecen
I hate to say it, but this is deserved for sue happy people. Cinemark never claimed to protect you if a gun toting crazy person opens fire in the theatre. I feel sorry for the families of the victims, but they quite literally brought this upon themselves.
That said, unless the company is strapped for cash, they should probably drop the countersuit now that their point has been made and eat the loss.
That said, unless the company is strapped for cash, they should probably drop the countersuit now that their point has been made and eat the loss.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 2:20 pm to Dr RC
quote:
if they dont drop that shite I'm never going to a Cinemark again.
I'll happily go. Were they just supposed to roll over and suffer 700k in fees because they got sued?
It was a bunk legal theory that the jury clearly didn't buy.
FYI - I doubt the statute is mandatory on legal fees, but the costs likely are.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 2:23 pm to LSUTiger88
quote:
Poor judgment by Cinemark, but also poor judgment by the victims to try and sue Cinemark
This.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 2:26 pm to tduecen
Cinemark was required to mount a legal defense when they were blamed for something they had no part in or no responsibility for.
I see no problem with their wanting to recoup losses that they were forced to endure.
Call it what you will but this was all one big "who can we sue?.... I know! The theater!" and it blew up in their faces.
Too bad for them and now each plaintiff owes $23k for their error.
I see no problem with their wanting to recoup losses that they were forced to endure.
Call it what you will but this was all one big "who can we sue?.... I know! The theater!" and it blew up in their faces.
Too bad for them and now each plaintiff owes $23k for their error.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 2:26 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
I'll happily go. Were they just supposed to roll over and suffer 700k in fees because they got sued?
In this case?
Hell yes.
If this was a person doing something stupid like slipping on a pickle that sued them I'd be all for them going after legal costs.
But since it was about people getting murdered in their theater... yea.. sometimes you just need to eat the cost and move on.
$700k is not worth the PR hit they are about to take.
This post was edited on 6/30/16 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 6/30/16 at 2:26 pm to MSMHater
You're not going to hell. This is the result of legal proceedings. It's a tough position, but it is misleading to have a headline that simply says they're billing victims.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 2:29 pm to Dr RC
quote:
$700k is not worth the PR hit they are about to take.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 2:32 pm to tduecen
You should put this in the OT.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 2:32 pm to Dr RC
quote:at first i was like that. And then i thought about it. What was this law suit? It was the people in the theater looking for an easy check from a company.
if they dont drop that shite I'm never going to a Cinemark again.
Think about it, should the theater really be blammed for a crazy person sneaking a gun in and shooting people. Some can do that at any place. The stores you visit, your place of employment, your home. Why should the theater pay these people millions of dollars.
ETA: Which it brings it down to the root of the problem, lawyers and the existing laws. The simplest ways to get rid of these frivolous law suits would be if you sue someone and lose, you automatically pay the other parties legal fees. plain and simple. No counter suit.
This post was edited on 6/30/16 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 6/30/16 at 2:34 pm to Dr RC
It was a frivolous lawsuit to sue Cinemark. Why would the theater be responsible in that scenario? Should every business have armed guards throughout or require metal detectors at entrances and body searches? Every place would become like the TSA and it would absolutely suck.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 2:37 pm to tduecen
If anyone should eat these costs I would say the lawyers that convinced these people to bring the lawsuit should be the ones to do it.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 2:37 pm to tduecen
quote:
Deadline speculates that the current fees and cost filings could be a way for the chain to stop an appeal in return for dropping the financial action
Also from the article. This is kinda what I figured too.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 2:38 pm to CarRamrod
It's not always necessarily the victims looking for a quick buck. A lot of the time it's money hungry lawyers feeding the victims a bunch of bull shite. They're capitalizing on people's grief. THEY should be responsible, IMO.
This post was edited on 6/30/16 at 2:42 pm
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News