re: Cinemark Bills Colorado Shooting Victims 700k for Legal Fees

quote:

---

.I think it can be argued that the theater should share some responsibility for not having reasonable controls on emergency exits. The emergency exit was left open, which allowed the shooter to leave the theater and come back through the emergency exit. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess, and who knows if things would have gone differently if an alarm was sounded when the door was left open, or if theater staff / security were automatically notified. The main purpose of an emergency exit door being locked from the outside has been mainly to keep people from sneaking in. These days, it seems like it should also be a safety mechanism as well. It may not prevent things like this from happening, but it probably makes it more difficult to get into a crowded theater with several weapons on you.

---

It can (and probably was) argued, but a jury flat rejected that theory of comparative fault. However, that shouldn't force the losing side to may the legal bills of the other side.

One of those anti gun groups or some anti gun celebrity should put their money where their mouth is and pay this for the victims.

The theatre should not have to fill suit to receive reimbursement (it will just be entered as an order by the judge that oversaw the case unless the victims are refusing to pay), and the victims may have to pay these bills in installments. However, they knew the risks of this going in, and their attorneys would have had to of told them about this possibility (if they didn't then that is another suit they could file against their attorneys). Loser's should pay. It's the a method of keeping frivolous law suits from clogging up the docket. They should have never taken this case to trial, as it was almost impossible to meet the legal standard for liability.

It's been touched on, but this is leverage.

quote:

---

It was stated last month by Plaintiffs' lawyer Marc Bern that an appeal of the verdict would likely be filed. 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.

---

Deadline's speculation would be spot on.

Plaintiff attorneys threaten appeal in hopes of a last ditch nuisance settlement offer. Cinemark moves for attorney's fees for leverage against appeal.

Doubtful that Cinemark will try to collect beyond right of offset, although there are probably a few interesting conversations today between plaintiffs and the attorneys.

Also, it is possible that the $700k is not set in stone. That's what they've submitted, and in all liklihood reflects actual cost. But that doesn't mean the judge will recognize that amount as being the "reasonable amount" awarded to them.

Unless there's some Colorado procedural quirk stating otherwise.

Hey thems the rules

quote:

---

I'm with you, dude. I see the flaws in the system, but I don't think we're going to convince many people here of that. LABI and the insurance industry have been dominating the discussion for years.

---

Cry me a fricking river. It's part of your evaluation as a plaintiff's attorney and the risk of bringing a case to verdict. You evaluate the likelihood of your ability to establish some degree of fault of a defendant before you take the case, and you know that if you lose at trial, costs are going to be awarded to the other side. If the situation were reversed the defendants would have to pay plaintiff's costs. Do you have a problem with that?

You good with me billing the frick out of a rear-end accident with minimum limits?

Pay me 7 or 8 thousand for my thorough preparation and presentation of the case and give my client the 15k in policy limits as well on a slam dunk liability case.

That's a much more likely scenario that will play out multiple times daily throughout the country much more than this Cinemark deal.

ETA: or I get a 100k judgment against your client and then I unveil my contingency fee contract and tack on another 33%-40% on top of what I just popped you for. After all, loser pays the attorney's fees of the winning side

Good.

Maybe this will keep people from being sue happy and trying to milk money out of settlements.

I feel bad they lost a family member, but they shouldn't have sued Cinemark in the first place.

quote:

---

A contract for contingency fees includes attorney fees in the standard 40% of the award. Only thing normally not included in the contingency fee is payment for experts and other things such as printing. With that said, your not going to tack on extra to a contingency fee contract for your legal fees.

---

If you want to pass loser pays then you bet your arse I'm making this argument to a judge. As it stands now, a jury is awarding damages based solely on what happened to the Plaintiff. The jury doesn't know what kind of contract the Plaintiff and the plaintiff's attorney have.

So pass loser pays and then I'm showing the judge my contract where it clearly says my fee is 33% of any amount recovered and based on the loser pays law, the losing side has to pay the winning side's attorney's fees

It cuts both ways, and that's what the other lawyer in this thread and I are trying to tell you guys.

But what will more likely happen is I'm taking every rear-end accident on an hourly basis and I'm being thorough as frick in discovery. I'm investigating every speeding ticket the Defendant had since he started driving. I'm reading over every text message and Facebook post he's ever made. We're going to trial and I'm going to win because liability is clear. And when I win, I'm handing the insurance company a bill for 10k on top of the 15k they're paying my client for her damages.

It may sound good in theory, but it would be a motherfricker to implement in practice.

And like I've said repeatedly, there are multiple mechanisms in place already that allow for a case to be dismissed if it is actually frivolous or there are no grounds for the claim(s).

Don't forget that Cinemark was a victim as well.