Should Cinemark pay up anyway?

[musterion]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cinemark-attorneys-want-aurora-shooting-victims-to-pay-700k-legal-fees/

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/06/30/cinemark-aurora-theater-shooting-victims-legal-fees/

The Cinemark theater chain was sued by some of the families of the victims of the 2012 Aurora shooting. The suit claimed the theater was responsible because it provided inadequate security. The jury disagreed and found the theater free of responsibility. Cinemark still settled out of court with several families. Others did not settle, and instead sued. They have not prevailed.

Under Colorado law, someone who is sued but wins is entitled to the legal fees they spent defending themselves. That bill is about $700,000. A judge said Cinemark is entitled to compensation and the company is asking to be paid back.

Leftists are now claiming that even if Cinemark was not wrong before, it is definitely wrong now. They say the chain should "eat" its legal costs. Others are calling for a boycott. Still others are saying the theater should pay out to the families anyway, just because.

On the other side, some say the law is the law and Cinemark has a right to get its money back.

Do you think Cinemark should eat the $700,000 it spent defending itself?

Do you think that Cinemark should pay out to the families anyway, despite being found completely free of liability?

Do you think everyone who did not settle but sued Cinemark should pay back what they forced the company to spend defending itself?

 

[Feral Phoenician]

It's a sad situation, but no, Cinemark is in the right. The law states they are entitled to legal fees compensation. The were found by a jury to be cleared of all wrong doing.

Cinemark should not have to "eat" $700,000. I am by no means a Corporatist, nor do I think corporations "are people, too". However, the law is the law. The attorneys for the victims surviving family would have instructed the families about the law, and the risks run.

It's a horrible situation, which, yeah, "tugs at the heartstrings", and can easily illicit an emotional response. They (victims families) lost loved ones, and now have to "shell out" money. It sucks, and I feel for them. Again, though, Cinemark is in the right.

 

[musterion]

One of the articles hints that some families accepted "go away" money because Colorado law would have bitten them if they went looking for a jackpot from a sympathetic jury, and lost. Roll the dice in Colorado and loser pays. It should be that way everywhere but lawyers should pay most of the recompense.

Because you know who comes out on top in all this? The lawyers who agreed to represent those families at trial...or who talked those families into going to trial. If memory serves, they (the lawyers) do not have to pay.

 

[Feral Phoenician]

One of the articles hints that some families accepted "go away" money because Colorado law would have bitten them if they went looking for a jackpot from a sympathetic jury, and lost. Roll the dice in Colorado and loser pays. It should be that way everywhere but lawyers should pay most of the recompense.

Because you know who comes out on top in all this? The lawyers who agreed to represent those families at trial...or who talked those families into going to trial. If memory serves, they (the lawyers) do not have to pay.

That's a nagging question now; did the attorneys properly caution the families that, in the event the jury favors Cinemark, there would be fiduciary consequences? Or did less scrupulous attorneys ("ambulance chasers") approach the families (or some of them) first?

My older sister is an attorney (Family Law, though not private practice), so, no, I don't "have an axe to grind" with lawyers.

 

[musterion]

A leftist on another board was saying how evil Cinemark is for wanting its money back. Someone asked, "An individual is sued, accused of making mass murder possible. He is found not liable. Does he have the right to get his money back after paying hundreds of thousands to clear his name?" As yet, the leftist has not answered. If he does answer it will be predictable: "Well, that's a person, not a corporation." The principle is the thing...it's either always wrong or it's always right.

 

[musterion]

That's a nagging question now; did the attorneys properly caution the families that, in the event the jury favors Cinemark, there would be fiduciary consequences?

I don't see how they couldn't have.

Or did less scrupulous attorneys ("ambulance chasers") approach the families (or some of them) first?

Very good question.

 

[Feral Phoenician]

A leftist on another board was saying how evil Cinemark is for wanting its money back. Someone asked, "An individual is sued, accused of making mass murder possible. He is found not liable. Does he have the right to get his money back after paying hundreds of thousands to clear his name?" As yet, the leftist has not answered. If he does answer it will be predictable: "Well, that's a person, not a corporation." The principle is the thing...it's either always wrong or it's always right.

It's not "evil" to want to recoup losses. It's standard business practice. Is Kroger Groceries (Fry's, out here) "evil" for having loss prevention and prosecuting shoplifters?

Do these extreme-leftists not understand that Cinemark losing $700,000 means their employees will suffer? Layoffs, cut hours, slashed benefits, etc. "The little guy" takes the haymaker, not the CEO. And that's equally terrible!

The idea that just because Cinemark "has the money" therefore should not be entitled to their due is both ludicrous and flawed. That's akin to saying I should get free gasoline because ExxonMobil "has the money".

 

[Tambora]

I don't know the answer, but was wondering if CineMark is a private business or a corporation.
Some corporations have their own staff of lawyers (ie. on their payroll).
So do those lawyers only get paid by case, or a flat sallary that would include ANY and ALL work they do, as their other employees?

If CineMark hired lawyers just for that case, then they are entitled to the cost.
But if it is lawyers that are on their payroll, then they are not because the salary of the lawyers are paid whether they get a case or not, and thus no extra money was spent.

 

[Tambora]

It's not "evil" to want to recoup losses. It's standard business practice. Is Kroger Groceries (Fry's, out here) "evil" for having loss prevention and prosecuting shoplifters?

Do these extreme-leftists not understand that Cinemark losing $700,000 means their employees will suffer? Layoffs, cut hours, slashed benefits, etc. "The little guy" takes the haymaker, not the CEO. And that's equally terrible!

The idea that just because Cinemark "has the money" therefore should not be entitled to their due is both ludicrous and flawed. That's akin to saying I should get free gasoline because ExxonMobil "has the money".

Yep.
I remember years ago when it was thought that a "luxury tax" be implemented.
This was to an attempt to extract more money from the wealthy.
Luxury items would be taxed more.

For instance, a yacht would be considered a luxury item, so to buy one you would be taxed more.

And here's what happened .....

The rich bought less yachts.
So construction workers in the yacht factories got laid off because there was not enough work for them all.
Plus, the workers in plants that made the materials (lumber, etc.) for the yachts were also laid off because they got less orders for the materials.
Fuel consumption for yachts went down.
So truckers got less work to haul fuel and materials.
Not to even mention the people that worked in yacht clubs (waitresses, cooks, bartenders, etc.) ----- don't need as many any more.

And that's just concerning yachts.
Add to that all the other luxury items and the amount of workers losing their jobs.

Mass amounts of the little people suffered.

When you bite the hand that feeds you, don't expect them to provide another meal.

 

[CabinetMaker]

One of the articles hints that some families accepted "go away" money because Colorado law would have bitten them if they went looking for a jackpot from a sympathetic jury, and lost. Roll the dice in Colorado and loser pays. It should be that way everywhere but lawyers should pay most of the recompense.

Because you know who comes out on top in all this? The lawyers who agreed to represent those families at trial...or who talked those families into going to trial. If memory serves, they (the lawyers) do not have to pay.

Have you ever seen the adds where a lawyer claims that if you don't get paid, I don't get paid? That is only true for his fee, not his expenses. Win our lose, you have to pay the expenses the lawyer incurs representing your case. And if you lose the case, you have to reimburse the winning party, not your lawyer. There is no downside for a lawyer in these cases.

 

[musterion]

Have you ever seen the adds where a lawyer claims that if you don't get paid, I don't get paid? That is only true for his fee, not his expenses. Win our lose, you have to pay the expenses the lawyer incurs representing your case. And if you lose the case, you have to reimburse the winning party, not your lawyer. There is no downside for a lawyer in these cases.

Because laws are written by lawyers, for lawyers.

 

[musterion]

Yep.
I remember years ago when it was thought that a "luxury tax" be implemented.
This was to an attempt to extract more money from the wealthy.
Luxury items would be taxed more.

For instance, a yacht would be considered a luxury item, so to buy one you would be taxed more.

And here's what happened .....

The rich bought less yachts.
So construction workers in the yacht factories got laid off because there was not enough work for them all.
Plus, the workers in plants that made the materials (lumber, etc.) for the yachts were also laid off because they got less orders for the materials.
Fuel consumption for yachts went down.
So truckers got less work to haul fuel and materials.
Not to even mention the people that worked in yacht clubs (waitresses, cooks, bartenders, etc.) ----- don't need as many any more.

And that's just concerning yachts.
Add to that all the other luxury items and the amount of workers losing their jobs.

Mass amounts of the little people suffered.

When you bite the hand that feeds you, don't expect them to provide another meal.

Exactly right!

They say Hitler was insane. Evil, yes. Insane...maybe at the very end in the Bunker, but early on he was anything but insane. He knew exactly what he wanted and came damn near to getting it. Then he got greedy and reckless.

Many say Leftists are stupid. Well, leftist drones such as those infesting TOL are stupid. Very stupid. They like that the thinking is done for them.

But the global Leftists in charge are not stupid. They've had almost 100 years of tinkering with communist infiltration in various societies to know the precise effect their agendas will have. They knew the yacht thing would be the ultimate effect of the luxury tax...it sounds good up front, getting people to vote for them. Then when a local economy tanks, they blame someone else and promise a "social safety net," often getting the very same people they screwed out of work to vote for them AGAIN and AGAIN. For generations.

Leftists in charge PRETEND to be stupid when caught, as Clinton just did, but they are NEVER stupid.

Now look at all the GOP's pointless theatrics with FBI director Comey. He redefined the laws Clinton broke to read her INTENT to do wrong, when the law reportedly has no such requirement. Broke the law? You're guilty...unless you're Clinton. And the GOP is going into faux-outrage mode yet again. Nothing will happen. We're done as a Republic.

Sorry for the rant.

 

[Tambora]

Exactly right!

They say Hitler was insane. Evil, yes. Insane...maybe at the very end in the Bunker, but early on he was anything but insane. He knew exactly what he wanted and came damn near to getting it. Then he got greedy and reckless.

Many say Leftists are stupid. Well, leftist drones such as those infesting TOL are stupid. Very stupid. They like that the thinking is done for them.

But the global Leftists in charge are not stupid. They've had almost 100 years of tinkering with communist infiltration in various societies to know the precise effect their agendas will have. They knew the yacht thing would be the ultimate effect of the luxury tax...it sounds good up front, getting people to vote for them. Then when a local economy tanks, they blame someone else and promise a "social safety net," often getting the very same people they screwed out of work to vote for them AGAIN and AGAIN. For generations.

Leftists in charge PRETEND to be stupid when caught, as Clinton just did, but they are NEVER stupid.

Now look at all the GOP's pointless theatrics with FBI director Comey. He redefined the laws Clinton broke to read her INTENT to do wrong, when the law reportedly has no such requirement. Broke the law? You're guilty...unless you're Clinton. And the GOP is going into faux-outrage mode yet again. Nothing will happen. We're done as a Republic.

Sorry for the rant.

It's no rant to me!
I agree.

People need to stop getting wrapped up in the emotional propaganda (unity, we are the world, let's all just drink a Coke, tie a ribbon on something) nonsense.
Unity of the world is a whimsical pipe-dream.
They need to pick a side.



As per the OP, I wonder why liberals would protest CineMark as being a meanie for abiding by the law, but say nothing negative about the very law that outright states it is adequate and acceptable to do so?
If it's so disgusting to them, then it is the law they should be protesting.

 

[Nick M]

It would not have happened if the USA executed people like we were supposed to be doing. And the people will not act presumptuously.

He was wearing body armor.

 

[musterion]

It would not have happened if the USA executed people like we were supposed to be doing. And the people will not act presumptuously.

Yup.