- 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
Las Vegas shooting: Mandalay Bay hotel owner sues 1,000 victims
Posted on 7/17/18 at 2:04 pm
Posted on 7/17/18 at 2:04 pm
BBC Link
I'm going to cue the #BankruptMGM hashtag
The owner of the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas has filed a lawsuit against more than 1,000 victims of a mass shooting that killed 58 people in 2017.
The MGM Resorts International's lawsuit does not seek money and appears to be a judicial bid to avoid liability and dismiss claims against it.
A lawyer for several victims called the lawsuit "outrageous" and "verging on unethical", according to US reports.
Stephen Paddock, 64, opened fire on festival-goers before killing himself.
Paddock had set up a firing point with 23 weapons in the Mandalay Bay overlooking the Route 91 Harvest festival, also owned by MGM, on 1 October last year.
MGM Resorts International filed complaints in Nevada and California, arguing it could not be held liable for any deaths, injuries or damages caused during the attack.
"Plaintiffs have no liability of any kind to defendants," the complaints argue.
It says the security company it hired was certified by the Department of Homeland Security and was therefore protected from liability under a 2002 federal act.
I'm going to cue the #BankruptMGM hashtag
The owner of the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas has filed a lawsuit against more than 1,000 victims of a mass shooting that killed 58 people in 2017.
The MGM Resorts International's lawsuit does not seek money and appears to be a judicial bid to avoid liability and dismiss claims against it.
A lawyer for several victims called the lawsuit "outrageous" and "verging on unethical", according to US reports.
Stephen Paddock, 64, opened fire on festival-goers before killing himself.
Paddock had set up a firing point with 23 weapons in the Mandalay Bay overlooking the Route 91 Harvest festival, also owned by MGM, on 1 October last year.
MGM Resorts International filed complaints in Nevada and California, arguing it could not be held liable for any deaths, injuries or damages caused during the attack.
"Plaintiffs have no liability of any kind to defendants," the complaints argue.
It says the security company it hired was certified by the Department of Homeland Security and was therefore protected from liability under a 2002 federal act.
11
Posted on 7/17/18 at 2:05 pm to MrLSU
This story gets weirder by the day
Posted on 7/17/18 at 2:05 pm to MrLSU
quote:
The MGM Resorts International's lawsuit does not seek money and appears to be a judicial bid to avoid liability and dismiss claims against it.
While it is certainly bad optics to go forward with a lawsuit, it does seem unfair to target the hotel
If a thug steals your car and uses it to run over innocent people, should they be able to sue you?
This post was edited on 7/17/18 at 2:11 pm
Posted on 7/17/18 at 2:05 pm to MrLSU
Paying off the police wasn't enough, so let's sue the victims.
Posted on 7/17/18 at 2:06 pm to MrLSU
Meh, I don't think those folks are due any money from the casino. Just b/c they have deep pockets means they did anything wrong.
Posted on 7/17/18 at 2:09 pm to MrLSU
quote:
It says the security company it hired was certified by the Department of Homeland Security and was therefore protected from liability under a 2002 federal act.
Plot thickens
Posted on 7/17/18 at 2:10 pm to MrLSU
quote:
It says the security company it hired was certified by the Department of Homeland Security and was therefore protected from liability under a 2002 federal act.
That was event security. Hotel security is what will be targeted here. Worth a shot, though.
Posted on 7/17/18 at 2:11 pm to MrLSU
Judge shopping
Posted on 7/17/18 at 2:11 pm to MrLSU
There was a thread earlier today on this...the headline and story are clickbait, misrepresentation. The hotel didn’t sue the victims, they’re simply seeking a declaratory judgement on whether or not they are immune from liability under a fed terrorism stat.
Earlier thread: LINK
Earlier thread: LINK
This post was edited on 7/17/18 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 7/17/18 at 2:13 pm to MrLSU
First I'm reading anything on this, but I don't see how MGM is Liable.
I don't see a problem with this.
quote:
The MGM Resorts International's lawsuit does not seek money and appears to be a judicial bid to avoid liability and dismiss claims against it.
I don't see a problem with this.
Posted on 7/17/18 at 2:20 pm to upgrayedd
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/27/23 at 4:09 am
Posted on 7/17/18 at 2:28 pm to DelU249
Their security is definitely the target. Given that the LVPD had an officer in the stairwell a floor below and he froze with hotel officers and a few trainees, that's where the suit should focus.
Posted on 7/17/18 at 2:30 pm to cwill
quote:
the headline and story are clickbait, misrepresentation. The hotel didn’t sue the victims, they’re simply seeking a declaratory judgement on whether or not they are immune from liability under a fed terrorism stat.
Once again, journalists are not lawyers for a reason.
This post was edited on 7/17/18 at 2:31 pm
Posted on 7/17/18 at 2:50 pm to MrLSU
Trying to get ahead of the ambulance chasers that absolutely were going to sue. It's bad optics, but I can't blame them at all.
Posted on 7/17/18 at 2:55 pm to cwill
quote:
There was a thread earlier today on this...the headline and story are clickbait, misrepresentation. The hotel didn’t sue the victims, they’re simply seeking a declaratory judgement on whether or not they are immune from liability under a fed terrorism stat.
Exactly, they're trying to head off defending a multitude of civil suits and making the same baseline arguments in each.
Posted on 7/17/18 at 3:24 pm to MrLSU
The optics are not good (suing victims), but this move makes a lot of sense from a legal perspective.
By filing two Declaratory Judgment actions, the Hotel assures that all future claims by victims will be compulsory counterclaims IN ONE OF THOSE SUITS. This means reducing the total number of suits geometrically, including the number of venues in which the Hotel will have to litigate. Further, the Hotel has created a decent argument for consolidating the small number of pre-existing suits by victims INTO these two large suits, based upon “judicial efficiency”. Theoretically, the Hotel could reduce the entire mess to only two lawsuits. And the Hotel gets to pick the venue and (maybe) the Judges.
Public opinion (the “optics”) becomes less important, because a Dec Action such as these is almost ALWAYS decided by the Judge on summary judgment ... as a matter of law and WITHOUT ever seeing a jury.
It is a gamble, but probably a good one.
By filing two Declaratory Judgment actions, the Hotel assures that all future claims by victims will be compulsory counterclaims IN ONE OF THOSE SUITS. This means reducing the total number of suits geometrically, including the number of venues in which the Hotel will have to litigate. Further, the Hotel has created a decent argument for consolidating the small number of pre-existing suits by victims INTO these two large suits, based upon “judicial efficiency”. Theoretically, the Hotel could reduce the entire mess to only two lawsuits. And the Hotel gets to pick the venue and (maybe) the Judges.
Public opinion (the “optics”) becomes less important, because a Dec Action such as these is almost ALWAYS decided by the Judge on summary judgment ... as a matter of law and WITHOUT ever seeing a jury.
It is a gamble, but probably a good one.
This post was edited on 7/17/18 at 3:36 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News