Support NeoGAF

[Malyse]

Bruh.

Over a month after a state jury declared the nation’s third-largest exhibition chain was not responsible for the fatal Colorado theater shooting at the Aurora Century 16 multiplex, Cinemark wants the victims to pay up.

With paperwork filed last week, the chain is seeking $699,187.13 in legal fees and other costs from the nearly 30 plaintiffs in the consolidated action. Those plaintiffs are victims and surviving family members of those killed in the July 20, 2012 shooting at the Aurora theater during a screening of The Dark Night Rises.

Some are parents of those who gave up their lives saving others in the theater and others are those who were badly wounded.

As is true in many jurisdictions across the nation, state law in Colorado allows the winning side in a civil case to seek costs. After years of legal battling, Cinemark won the state case on May 19 when the 6-person jury delivered a unanimous verdict that the chain was not partially liable for the massacre that killed 12 and left 70 injured.

http://deadline.com/2016/06/cinemar...ting-legal-fees-dark-knight-rises-1201781674/

BRUH.

 

[RS4-]

That's uhh...well, certainly something.

 

[Jarmel]

Bruh indeed

 

[Escalario]

Uhhhh... what?!

 

[snacknuts]

What is that, like four large popcorns?

 

[Fushin]

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

 

[Hjod]

What the fudge. This can't be real, seriously.

Ok, didn't know the families sued the theater, puts it in another light, at least I understand it better now. Either way it's not a good look over 700k.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

I mean it sucks, but I don't know why the victims went after the theater chain? I do agree the chain should just eat the cost because it won't be a good look for them, even if they are legally entitled to claim those damages.

 

[Faddy]

They had no reason to sue the cinema.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

Boycott enabled.

 

[Krauser Kat]

i mean... dont sue someone unless you want to pay the cost of the trial, if you lose.

 

[hawk2025]

...did Cinemark really think $700K was worth the PR hit?

 

[El Topo]

Why did they (partially) blame Cinemark for the shooting in the first place?

 

[Dennis]

Why were the families suing Cinemark?

Were they negligent in some way?

 

[RickAstley]

Why is this bad? Cinemark gets sued and a jury finds them unanimously not to be at fault. Now all they seek are attorney's fees for having to defend the suit? Seems reasonable to me.

 

[Jarmel]

They had no reason to sue the cinema.

They probably thought security at the theater should have been tighter.

 

[Matt_]

PR wise I'm very surprised they'd go this direction

Surprised they were being sued in the first place

 

[echoshifting]

Yeah I read this yesterday and couldn't believe it. This is one of the largest theater chains in the country, this is chump change to them. I guess they're trying to limit appeals but the PR damage can't possibly be worth it. Truly terrible stuff.

Your title is missing a zero, by the way.

 

[BronsonLee]

Probably not worth the PR hit to actually seek costs.

I bet this gets withdrawn.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

From a PR perspective, this is certainly not a good idea.

But unsuccessful plaintiffs usually do pay the legal costs of the other side.

 

[Lesath]

I mean, I understand that you can technically force the losing side of a lawsuit to fork over attorney fees, but the PR fallout from this would be so bad you'd think they'd just write it off...

 

[norm9]

Definitely not a good look to sue to get the money back, but fuck the lawyers for swarming around the victims telling them to sue in the first place. The movie theater was in no way responsible.

They probably thought security at the theater should have been tighter.

That's one way for theaters to lose potential customers. Metal detectors, guards with guns, etc.

 

[ezrarh]

The victims' families shouldn't have sued Cinemark but it'd be better for PR if they just let it slide this time.

 

[hikarutilmitt]

i mean... dont sue someone unless you want to pay the cost of the trial, if you lose.

This. I know it's crappy to ask money of those who were harmed in some way, but those people also didn't really have a good foundation to say it was the theater's fault that it happened.

 

[HUELEN10]

Why is this bad? Cinemark gets sued and a jury finds them unanimously not to be at fault. Now all they seek are attorney's fees for having to defend the suit? Seems reasonable to me.

It's legally and technically very reasonable.

 

[ZackieChan]

I honestly don't see an issue with asking for attorneys' fees if it is their right. That money for a lawsuit doesn't just appear out of thin air. A bit heartless, sure, but did they really claim that the theater was to blame? I'd like to read more about their attorneys' reasoning there.

 

[23qwerty]

They probably thought security at the theater should have been tighter.

security... at a theatre?

 

[collige]

This is an extremely bad look for Cinemark, but I also understand their point of view. They rightfully won a stupid lawsuit over the attack and it's a bit hard to ask them to just ear a $700,000 lawyer bill.

 

[wrowa]

I don't know. If these are really just the legal fees and associated costs the chain had to pay in order to defend itself in court, then ... this actually seems fair enough? Why would they have to shoulder the costs of someone else suing them?

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

so the parents sued the chain and the chain won and now seeks compensation for legal fees? If the company wasn't grossly negligent I don't see too much wrong with that, rather confused why the victims and parents sued then. Anyone got a link to the original lawsuit?

 

[link1201]

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Yeah, you wouldn't think it would be worth it to them.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

I mean it sucks, but I don't know why the victims went after the theater chain?

They wanted money by leveraging this tragedy.

I'm with the cinema on this one.

 

[Chuckl3s]

It's legally and technically very reasonable.

Morally?...eh.

 

[HUELEN10]

Morally?...eh.

Morally reasonable as well.

They aren't asking an exorbitant amount, they are asking for fair coverage of their legal fees.

 

[Jarmel]

security... at a theatre?

I've had guards go through my bags at the theater and at certain venues for concerts I'm not allowed a bag at all.

It's legally and technically very reasonable.

Just because it's legal doesn't make it reasonable.

 

[Faddy]

I honestly don't see an issue with asking for attorneys' fees if it is their right. That money for a lawsuit doesn't just appear out of thin air. A bit heartless, sure, but did they really claim that the theater was to blame? I'd like to read more about their attorneys' reasoning there.

The reasoning is simple Cinemark were the closest party with the most money.

 

[Dishwalla]

Pretty heartless. It makes sense why they would, but still, heartless.

 

[marrec]

This is bad for Cinemark because you can run with headlines like the OPs

"Cinemark is seeking 700k from Aurora shooting victims and their families" is not something you want to see if you're Cinemark.

Someone should have stepped in and stopped this.

 

[adversarial]

They wanted money by leveraging this tragedy.

I'm with the cinema on this one.

Sounds like it, how could the theater be found criminally negligent?

 

[OnionPowder]

Morally?...eh.

Was it morally okay to sue the theater?

 

[NomarTyme]

Short sighted idiots. The PR alone is going to kill their businesses.

 

[El Topo]

so the parents sued the chain and the chain won and now seeks compensation for legal fees? If the company wasn't grossly negligent I don't see too much wrong with that, rather confused why the victims and parents sued then. Anyone got a link to the original lawsuit?

Not a link to the original lawsuit, but this article mentions some of their complaints and potential damages (at least $750,000 per case):
http://www.denverpost.com/2012/09/21/aurora-theater-shooting-victims-file-suits-against-cinemark/

 

[br3wnor]

The victims' families shouldn't have sued Cinemark but it'd be better for PR if they just let it slide this time.

Basically. Sucks for the families but if you bring a civil suit, be prepared to pay the opposing sides counsel fees if you lose.

That being said, for what I'm assuming is a very wealthy corporation, this is a dumb move because 99% of the public is just going to see "THEATER MAKING VICTIMS PAY LEGAL FEES THOSE EVIL FUCKS!" without going into the nuances of what is actually happening.

 

[Jarmel]

This is bad for Cinemark because you can run with headlines like the OPs

"Cinemark is seeking 700k from Aurora shooting victims and their families" is not something you want to see if you're Cinemark.

Someone should have stepped in and stopped this.

I'm stunned someone in PR didn't put a halt on this.

 

[commedieu]

Its not going to be worth the boycott.

Sure, its their right. But you don't have to be an asshole. The families were clearly distraught over a massacre.

 

[SyNapSe]

Seems fair.

 

[ctothej]

Absolutely disgusting. And whoever thought this would be a good idea should be fired... this is just about the worst PR a theater could have.

 

[NealMcCauley]

Lawsuit was a stupid idea, but this is on a completely different level of dumbness.

 

[Jesus Carbomb]

I'm ok with this.

 

[Furyous]

Cinemark's goodwill can erode after this in various communities. I understand people suing because security should be tighter anyway as people make decisions in the moment based off emotions.