- 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
re: Cinemark Bills Colorado Shooting Victims 700k for Legal Fees
Posted on 6/30/16 at 4:48 pm to boosiebadazz
Posted on 6/30/16 at 4:48 pm to boosiebadazz
There's nothing about "passing" loser pays. I don't know how things work in LA because I know that the civil system there is somewhat difference than common law, but in MS and the vast majority of states the loser pays now. When you win a case based on a contingency fee you get whatever percentage you agreed to of the award, whether the award is $10 or 1M. That's why its called a contingency "fee." You don't get to take your percentage of the award and then ask for legal fees when that percentage is your legal fee.
quote:
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.
1
Posted on 6/30/16 at 4:50 pm to TigernMS12
a modified loser pay is the way to go, however I'm sure all of the attorneys that would be involved in creating a modified system though would screw it all up
Posted on 6/30/16 at 4:51 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
It may sound good in theory, but it would be a motherfricker to implement in practice.
It's already in practice in the majority of common law states, and surprise it works.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 4:52 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
It's already in practice in the majority of common law states, and surprise it works.
link? I'd like to learn more.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 4:55 pm to moneyg
Oops sorry for the down vote
Posted on 6/30/16 at 4:56 pm to tduecen
In general I love the idea that plaintiffs who sue get charged for legal fees from the defendant when they lose frivolous cases.
But Cinemark should be smart enough to let this one go.
But Cinemark should be smart enough to let this one go.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 4:56 pm to tduecen
I disagree with the original ruling. Cinemark is responsible for these deaths because they enforce "gun-free zones." Those law-abiding citizens were required to disarm before entering the door.
ETA: Anyone who's family member wasn't a gun owner or licensed carrier shouldn't have sued though.
ETA2: There is no way I would do this if I were making the decision at Cinemark. The bad publicity is worth more than losing 700K.
ETA: Anyone who's family member wasn't a gun owner or licensed carrier shouldn't have sued though.
ETA2: There is no way I would do this if I were making the decision at Cinemark. The bad publicity is worth more than losing 700K.
This post was edited on 6/30/16 at 4:58 pm
Posted on 6/30/16 at 4:58 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
If we had more loser pays, our courts wouldn't be as clogged with frivolous bullshite and insurance would be a hell of a lot cheaper
True, and I don't disagree. But from a PR standpoint, Cinemark should just let this one go.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 4:58 pm to Indigold
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
This is how it usually works. $700k is a piss drop in the bucket for a huge corporation. It's bad form for a corporation to hardline victims of a murderous spree, even if the posters on here want to corporate dickride in this thread.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 5:01 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
There are mechanisms in place within lawsuits for a judge to dismiss frivolous lawsuits or lawsuits which fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
While I get what you are saying, you know this is bullshite
Posted on 6/30/16 at 5:04 pm to ell_13
Here comes all the noble people saying they wouldn't sue. I bet that if you lost a loved one in that theatre you would be suing too.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 5:10 pm to tigerpimpbot
quote:
tigerpimpbot
Someone gets shot outside your home and their estate sues you because your gate was locked. Jury finds you not at fault, do you eat $10k in legal fees that you accumulated due to a frivolous suit? A defendant should be able to recoup reasonable costs from a plaintiff in the event a suit is found to be frivolous. This was a money grab by the plaintiffs and their lawyers. While I have empathy for them and realize how a lawyer could convince their client to pursue a suit. I have no problem with the decision of cinemark to push the issue. I doubt they actually recoup a penny, but the precedent set forth would help you if god forbid a similar suit ever comes against you.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 5:10 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
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.
if i see this in some article, i'm going to claim plagiarism
just fyi
Posted on 6/30/16 at 5:13 pm to AwesomeSauce
Let's use the extremes to prove a point!
What if you sue someone and it's a slam dunk, but a minor administrative error or some other technicality causes a ruling against you. You're happy to pay the defense, right?
What if you sue someone and it's a slam dunk, but a minor administrative error or some other technicality causes a ruling against you. You're happy to pay the defense, right?
Posted on 6/30/16 at 5:15 pm to tduecen
Worst PR move they could have done short of sending them all blue waffle pics saying frick off.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 5:18 pm to tduecen
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
I agree with this....
quote:
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
But I am
about how stupid this sounds... BTW IMO the dude should have already been executed... Don't tell me the guy was crazy... He made his apartment into an explosive hell hole BEFORE he went to the theater... The DUDE KNEW what he was doing the whole time... I swear this defense of "CRAZY " is fricking stupid.............. Posted on 6/30/16 at 5:20 pm to AwesomeSauce
quote:
Someone gets shot outside your home and their estate sues you because your gate was locked. Jury finds you not at fault, do you eat $10k in legal fees that you accumulated due to a frivolous suit? A defendant should be able to recoup reasonable costs from a plaintiff in the event a suit is found to be frivolous. This was a money grab by the plaintiffs and their lawyers. While I have empathy for them and realize how a lawyer could convince their client to pursue a suit. I have no problem with the decision of cinemark to push the issue. I doubt they actually recoup a penny, but the precedent set forth would help you if god forbid a similar suit ever comes against you.
My homeowners insurance policy would provide me with defense attorneys on a claim like that so I wouldn't be out of pocket. Plus I'm not a corporation.
Like I said, this is 90% likely a move by cinemark to get the plaintiffs to drop their appeals. I don't really have a problem with the loser pays concept, I'm more concerned with it as it applies to the specific facts presented here.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 10:23 pm to tduecen
Cinemark gave them the movie they wanted to see. The a-hole gave them the bullets they didn't want.
No fault against Cinemark.
No fault against Cinemark.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 10:51 pm to tduecen
Wow, they're dumb. 700k is not worth the bad publicity they'll get over this.. Write it off on taxes and move on.
Posted on 6/30/16 at 10:56 pm to tigerpimpbot
Of course.
This s absolutely to discourage them from further legal action. It is also the correct course for the corporation to pursue.
This s absolutely to discourage them from further legal action. It is also the correct course for the corporation to pursue.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News