Support NeoGAF

[Syriel]

It's distasteful to go after the families of victims but it was also kind of messed up to go after the theater for incident like it was their fault. At the same time, they're a big theatre chain and it's $700k just write it off, guys.

The PR from this is not going to be pleasant.

If the families went after the theatre, then a bit of the onus is kind of on them. But it's distasteful for the theatre to ask publicly.

All around horrible.

The families have stated that they plan to appeal and keep the lawsuit going.

This means that Cinemark can't just "write it off" as there are ongoing costs to defend as long as the suit keeps going.

The families in question are responsible for those costs. Why should Cinemark agree to pay unbounded defense costs?

 

[Catdaddy]

People are so caught up in "bad PR" that they are completely missing why this is being done. Cinemark isn't going to make these people pay, they are doing this so that these people go away with their frivolous lawsuits. This isn't stupid or a bad move, it's highly intelligent and they most likely have a team of lawyers telling them as much. They are basically telling these people that if they continue with their actions, after having already lost once, that the repercussions can and will be severe. As soon as it's clear that people are done trying to hold them accountable for something that wasn't their fault this counter suit will go away as well.

Yep, sad a situation as it is. I can understand Cinemark's decision.

 

[gatti-man]

I'm ok with this. It's a tragedy and people tried to blame the theater. That's wrong.

 

[Mr. X]

It's hard to get mad when the victims won't give up trying to sue them.

 

[metalslimer]

It's hard to get mad when the victims won't give up trying to sue them.

Yeah I can't really find fault with them here.

 

[maxiell]

It's distasteful to go after the families of victims.

This never happened.

There's no PR hit here. Anyone who reads more than two seconds into this situation realizes it's a stretch to find the theater liable.

 

[godhandiscen]

They had no reason to sue the cinema.

Pretty much.

 

[BigDug13]

They had no reason to sue the cinema.

Yep. They tried to get a payday off the backs of their fallen family members and cost Cinemark $700k. They deserve to pay up based on frivolous lawsuits. Movie Theaters are not responsible for your personal security outside of providing emergency exits.

 

[MonorailCat]

Why would anyone sue the theater?
Thats's just stupid. The lawyers that convinced these people that this would make sense should be ashamed.

 

[Aselith]

This never happened.

There's no PR hit here. Anyone who reads more than two seconds into this situation realizes it's a stretch to find the theater liable.

I don't think you realize how little people actually read. There have been studies where people will frequently post things to facebook and things like that after only reading the title. If the headline is "Cinemark countersues shooting victims families for 700k" there will be a PR hit regardless of the details.

I don't think it will be a big one but it will have one.

 

[Shamrock7r]

This is a tough one. If i had to wager a guess, maybe they are trying to use "asking the plaintiffs to pay lawyer fees" as leverage for the plaintiffs to drop their appeal?

So it looks like EmpathyGAF is on summer vacation.

The word empathy is being thrown around / misused more and more to try and shut down legitimate debate.

 

[Figgles]

Cinemark has every right to seek compensation for their legal fees. They won't pursue it though. They will eat the cost in exchange for the families dropping the suit.

 

[GreatestHits]

Really sad that people chose to sue them. It hurts everyone's reputation. When confronted with that much stress and when the perp gets off with free companionship and meals every day, you probably go a little crazy

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

This should apply to filing lawsuits as well.

That said, not sure $700k is worth the bad press this going to probably cause from people that don't read past the headline.

 

[Ambient80]

What is that, like four large popcorns?

I lol'd

 

[GreatestHits]

Why would anyone sue the theater?
Thats's just stupid. The lawyers that convinced these people that this would make sense should be ashamed.

Hahahaha. But they're not. They're lawyers. Your problem makes them lots of money. **** everyone but themselves. On a lighter note, lawyers have some of the most horrific afterlives of all human beings, up there with ISIS and their 7 female virgin sows

 

[Malyse]

The word empathy is being thrown around / misused more and more to try and shut down legitimate debate.

em·pa·thy
ˈempəTHē
noun
1. the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

Please explain how I'm misusing it.

Spoiler

Or don't. I'm actually not really interested in hearing justifications for callous apathy toward the pains of others.

 

[jstevenson]

I don't think Cinemark cares about the 700k that much (esp with the PR hit), but it's probably a big squeeze on the families, and Cinemark is using it to try to get them to drop the appeal (which could cost Cinemark a lot more)

 

[Lebron]

This is what happens when you go for the pointless cash grab.

 

[Fuchsdh]

This is like a company CEO having his car scratched by a toddler and then public ally suing the toddler for damages. Whatever is going to be gained in court is going to be lost in public image.

This is like the toddler's little brother dying from someone else chucking a rock at him in the company parking lot and suing the company. Your analogy makes even less sense than mine.

These people sued and lost, as they should have. I don't blame the theater chain for trying to recoup the costs they had to eat because some parents are either distraught idiots, gold-digging over the corpses of their loved ones, or both. This is probably about making sure they don't have to spend more for appeals and the like than it is about shaking down all the plaintiffs.

 

[HariKari]

Can't go for the pointless, questionable cash grab and not suffer the consequences.

 

[Shamrock7r]

em·pa·thy
ˈempəTHē
noun
1. the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

Please explain how I'm misusing it.

Spoiler

Or don't. I'm actually not really interested in hearing justifications for callous apathy toward the pains of others.

You can empathize with someone and still disagree with their actions. Simple.

But because a person debates the reason and legality of the theatre doing what they did, and may side with them, you determine that they lack empathy and have a "callous apathy towards the pain of others". That's wrong on you to do. It's not honest.

 

[Aselith]

em·pa·thy
ˈempəTHē
noun
1. the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

Please explain how I'm misusing it.

Spoiler

Or don't. I'm actually not really interested in hearing justifications for callous apathy toward the pains of others.

Suffering a loss is not carte blanche to act how you want. People can understand that they are grieving and feel empathy for them AND also understand that they have directed their grief at the wrong outlet and caused a loss of time and money to someone else in doing so. Grief can excuse a rash action but it's harder to keep excusing things as you continue down a path months and years later and continue to continue even after a jury has said no this is not the correct way to direct that.

Eventually if you're attacking a person or a corporation, they have to fight back even if no one wants to.

 

[Kusagari]

Cinemark's main goal is almost assuredly to get them to drop the appeals.

The bad press is worth it in the mean time if they can get this stupid case out of the court system.

 

[Az987]

Shouldn't the emergency theater doors have alarms when opened?

I don't think it's the theaters fault but like every emergency door I've ever seen has an alarm. Since he left through that and came back with weapons

I would think it's a safety law requirement, right?

 

[Vilix]

Why were the families suing Cinemark?

Were they negligent in some way?

Lawyers. Plain and simple.

 

[VariantX]

This never happened.

There's no PR hit here. Anyone who reads more than two seconds into this situation realizes it's a stretch to find the theater liable.

Most people are not going to read. People don't go beyond the sound bite or the headline.

 

[justjohn]

People shitting on Cinemark but not the families trying to cash in on the deaths of their family members? I agree it's a bad PR move for them though.

 

[boiled goose]

security... at a theatre?

To be fair... theaters are sometimes grossly understaffed.

Didn't the dude walk in with assault weapons and body armor?

 

[riotous]

Totally support this. Those who sued the theater are really classless. Sorry for your loss and all that but our opportunistic litigious society sucks; civil suits are an important option but aren't there to be abused.

This particular suit would set a terrible precedent; so now to have a business you have to have armed guards lest you be sued if something happens a? Ridixulous.

 

[riotous]

Shouldn't the emergency theater doors have alarms when opened?

I don't think it's the theaters fault but like every emergency door I've ever seen has an alarm. Since he left through that and came back with weapons

I would think it's a safety law requirement, right?

Those aren't usually emergency exits. All kinds of theaters have exits to the outside ; the age-old trick of paying for one ticket and then letting your friends in.

 

[Diablos]

Not sure how the cinema can be liable but honestly, they shouldn't be counter suing the families and victims.

Sue the fucking NRA if you're really on a mission

 

[PSqueak]

Cinemark eats the cost, now what stops people from sueing in the future since they now believe a bogus case resulting in a loss holds zero consequence?

Yeah?

Okay, here's the scenario:

To avoid bad PR, Cinemark eats the costs, so they don't come as the assholes to the surviving families of the victims of the tragedy, sure some guys think they can get away with frivolous lawsuits now.

Some asshole thinks "oh wow, i can totally sue with no consequences!" and sues for frivolous shit, having no stigma of the tragedy, Cinemark wins and is awarded a huge amount of money, meanwhile the rest of the world doesn't give a shit because there is no tragedy attached.

As ill adviced as the lawsuit was, in the greater scheme of things, that money is not worth the tons of bad press it would cause, bad press can lead to waaaay more loses than eating those costs.

 

[knkng]

It's an awful thing, but I have to side with the theater on this one. The initial lawsuit was unsubstantiated in my eyes (and obviously the eyes of the jury), so I don't see why they should have to shoulder the defense fees incurred.

As ill adviced as the lawsuit was, in the greater scheme of things, that money is not worth the tons of bad press it would cause, bad press can lead to waaaay more loses than eating those costs.

Nobody will care or remember two months from now.

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

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

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

As a lawyer that acts for a fair few well-heeled clients, the former consideration is often so much more important.

 

[PSqueak]

Nobody will care or remember two months from now.

Im pretty sure people are incredibly sensitive to all gun violence events in recent history right now.

 

[TSM]

Shouldn't the emergency theater doors have alarms when opened?

I don't think it's the theaters fault but like every emergency door I've ever seen has an alarm. Since he left through that and came back with weapons

I would think it's a safety law requirement, right?

I've never been to a theater where they had alarms on the exits. Patrons actually use those exits to leave the theater after a movie a lot of times, and as other people have pointed out they have been used to sneak people in. At every theater I've ever been to they are not emergency exits. They are just exits.

 

[Aselith]

To be fair... theaters are sometimes grossly understaffed.

Didn't the dude walk in with assault weapons and body armor?

He left the stuff outside and then went out through a propped open exit. Even if they had security on staff, it wouldn't have stopped it because he didn't go through an area that security would have been watching with the gear.

 

[psynergylover]

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

Seriously!

 

[mre]

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.

Considering that Colorado has a very high bar for the awarding of attorneys' fees, I'm okay with it as well.

The court shall assess attorney fees if, upon the motion of any party or the court itself, it finds that an attorney or party brought or defended an action, or any part thereof, that lacked substantial justification or that the action, or any part thereof, was interposed for delay or harassment or if it finds that an attorney or party unnecessarily expanded the proceeding by other improper conduct, including, but not limited to, abuses of discovery procedures available under the Colorado rules of civil procedure or a designation by a defending party under section 13-21-111.5 (3) that lacked substantial justification. As used in this article, "lacked substantial justification" means substantially frivolous, substantially groundless, or substantially vexatious.

Substantially frivolous, groundless or vexatious is a very tough burden to meet. I doubt that the judge grants the motion for fees, but wouldn't be completely surprised if he did, either.

 

[knkng]

Im pretty sure people are incredibly sensitive to all gun violence events in recent history right now.

Sure, but I can't see any major issues for the theater coming from a countersuit. It may grab some headlines for a couple weeks, but it'll fade.

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

Still, a certain degree of ire should be reserved for the vulture-cunt lawyers that advised the plaintiffs that this would be a good idea.

 

[NullPointer]

The plaintiffs deserve the bad PR here, not Cinemark.

Its a move theater, not a protected compound.

 

[Booker Dewitt]

To be fair... theaters are sometimes grossly understaffed.

Didn't the dude walk in with assault weapons and body armor?

Iirc, he propped the exit door open and went back to his car.

I've never been to a theater where they had alarms on the exits. Patrons actually use those exits to leave the theater after a movie a lot of times, and as other people have pointed out they have been used to sneak people in. At every theater I've ever been to they are not emergency exits. They are just exits.

They installed alarms on the theatre exit doors last fall.

 

[TheOMan]

Why would anyone sue the theater?
Thats's just stupid. The lawyers that convinced these people that this would make sense should be ashamed.

Because the lawyers will still get paid. Unfortunately.

 

[mr stroke]

Im pretty sure people are incredibly sensitive to all gun violence events in recent history right now.

Think he's speaking of the Lawsuit

and...He's right, people don't care. You guys really think people will stop going to the movies over this ?

Cinemark has nothing to lose here.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I don't understand why more people aren't annoyed at the blood sucking lawyers who allowed this to happen. Surely they had a responsibility to tell their clients this was a bad idea.

 

[mre]

Because the lawyers will still get paid. Unfortunately.

Which lawyers? The plaintiffs'? I am 99% sure they were working on a contingency fee, which means they received no fees and, most likely, ate the cost of the litigation. So you can take solace in the fact that they almost certainly lost money.

I don't understand why more people aren't annoyed at the blood sucking lawyers who allowed this to happen. Surely they had a responsibility to tell their clients this was a bad idea.

Just because they lost doesn't make them "blood sucking." I'll wait until someone intimately familiar with both Colorado law and the facts of this case--namely, the judge--rules on the motion for fees before passing judgement on the lawyers. If the judge grants the motion, she or he is essentially stating that the lawsuit was frivolous or groundless under Colorado law. If the judge denies the motion, then there was some basis for bringing the lawsuit under Colorado law.

 

[TheOMan]

Which lawyers? The plaintiffs'? I am 99% sure they were working on a contingency fee, which means they received no fees and, most likely, ate the cost of the litigation. So you can take solace in the fact that they almost certainly lost money.

Just because they lost doesn't make them "blood sucking." I'll wait until someone intimately familiar with both Colorado law and the facts of this case--namely, the judge--rules on the motion for fees before passing judgement on the lawyers. If the judge grants the motion, she or he is essentially stating that the lawsuit was frivolous or groundless under Colorado law. If the judge denies the motion, then there was some basis for bringing the lawsuit under Colorado law.

Ah, didn't know that.

 

[Chuck Norris]

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

How big is Cinemark? It may not be easy for them to swallow hundreds of thousands in legal fees