The Cost Of A Movie In Aurora, Colorado

There are people for whom we can feel enormous sympathy. Real victims. True victims. Undeniable victims. And still, they can make poor choices and, ultimately, suffer the consequences in court.  For some of the victims of James Holmes’ rampage at Cinemark’s Century Aurora 16 theater in Aurora, Colorado, the bill just came due at $700,000.

The question was never whether the plaintiffs were injured. They were, and their injurious were grievous. And there was no fault on the part of the plaintiffs, ordinary people who did nothing more than go to see a movie.  The question was whether the movie theater breached a duty to these patrons by failing to provide sufficient security to address a crazed shooter like Holmes. Was the theater liable for their injuries? Of this, the plaintiffs were certain:

“It was the 12th hour, we were all feeling the same way. We all knew they were liable. We knew they were at fault,” [victim Marcus] Weaver said.

The plaintiffs knew what was coming. They were told. There was a state case that resulted in a jury verdict for Cinemark, that they couldn’t have foreseen Holme’s rampage.  Judge R. Brooke Jackson actually told them that he would issue a decision against them, ending the case, the following day.  And Cinemark put a settlement offer on the table. Not a good offer from the plaintiffs’ perspective, but an offer.

On a conference call, the federal judge overseeing the case told the plaintiffs’ attorneys that he was prepared to rule in the theater chain’s favor. He urged the plaintiffs to settle with Cinemark, owner of the Century Aurora 16 multiplex where the July 20, 2012, shooting occurred. They had 24 hours.

This doesn’t happen. Judge’s don’t forewarn plaintiffs that their case is about to crash and burn, and give them 24 hours to deal with it. But this isn’t the usual case.

At 4 p.m., Cinemark’s attorneys presented a settlement offer. Before it was read, a federal magistrate cornered Weaver to speak with him one-on-one. He asked Weaver to remember the slow pace of change in the civil rights movement, and told him that changing theater safety would also be slow.

“It was the biggest smack in the face,” Weaver said. “He was basically telling us, you’re right, they’re basically at fault, but there’s justice and then there’s true justice.”

The “cause” for which the plaintiffs were fighting was to put armed security in every theater to prevent an attack like Holmes’. The plaintiffs believed the cause was righteous because they were victims. Others might not see armed guards in theaters as a great idea. Others might see it as a terrible idea. Perspectives differ.

Whether the mag’s message was, as Weaver heard it, that change would come slowly, or just a nudge to soften the blow felt by a plaintiff who he knew would be deeply disappointed by the outcome, is unclear. Settlements are often “sold” when they feel unsatisfying. It seems more likely that the mag was trying to soften the blow and make Weaver feel less awful about the outcome.

Yet, Cinemark, fully aware at this point that the case was over and they would have no liability, nonetheless made a settlement offer, likely because of Judge Jackson’s arm twisting that the parties settle and settle now. They didn’t have to offer two cents, but they made an offer.

It wasn’t a good deal, Weaver thought: $150,000 split among the 41 plaintiffs.

The amount was devastatingly low, but the lawyers saw the writing on the wall and pushed their clients to take it. This was a global offer, and it appeared that all were on board, until one wasn’t.

The choice for the survivors was clear, Weaver said.

“Either seek justice and go into debt, or take that pitiful offering of money and the improved public safety,” Weaver said.

And then, the done deal was undone.

Then one plaintiff rejected the deal.

The plaintiff, who had been gravely wounded in the shooting, wanted more money than the proposed share of the settlement. The Times is not naming the plaintiff because the plaintiff could not be reached for comment.

Weaver’s vision briefly blurred. The eight hours they had spent negotiating the deal, the weeks of the failed state court trial, the four years of anger at the theater since the shooting — all of it was for nothing.

“It was done then,” Weaver said.

There would be no settlement as it was all or nothing. The clock was ticking, the efforts wasted, the one plaintiff intransigent, and the remaining plaintiffs at his mercy. There was no other choice at this point.

He removed himself as a plaintiff immediately. So did 36 other people. Four plaintiffs remained on the case the next day, June 24, when Jackson handed down the order that Cinemark was not liable for the damages.

Cinemark “won” the case and, as provided by law, was awarded costs. Its costs were $700,000, and not only did the 37 plaintiffs who withdrew at the last minute get nothing, but the four remaining plaintiffs who decided that their position was right notwithstanding Judge Jackson’s forewarning will now have to pay costs to their nemesis, Cinemark.

Were the plaintiffs right to stand on principle, to adhere to their beliefs, even if the law was clearly against them?  Certainly they are a very sympathetic group, but then, was the theater really at fault for the harm done by a crazed gunman?  If you stare into the abyss long and hard enough, you can believe anything, and the plaintiffs believed that making Cinemark pay was “justice,” even if it wasn’t law.

One would assume that the four plaintiffs against whom costs were assessed will appeal Judge Jackson’s ruling, both against liability and the award of costs. Perhaps Cinemark will offer to settle the case to avoid an appeal by foregoing its costs, if not putting a little cash on the table.

But one thing is clear, that this situation was horrible all around, and that the victims of James Holmes’ murder spree have gone from awful to worse. Tragedies have a tendency to push people to act out of emotion, make poor choices and to believe in them too deeply. Because of this, tragedies sometimes compound themselves. It’s a shame.

H/T Jonathan Turley

5 thoughts on “The Cost Of A Movie In Aurora, Colorado

  1. Turk

    It is not the fault of the emotional plaintiffs, but of their lawyers. I don’t know anyone that would have taken such a case.

    The most important word in the vocabulary of the PI lawyer is “no.”

    The case never had a chance.

    1. SHG Post author

      That’s how it always seemed to me as well, and the lawyers fed (if not created) the plaintiffs’ belief that Cinemark was liable. I suspect the lawyers’ view was that the plaintiffs suffered sufficient harm, and were sufficiently sympathetic, to overcome the complete absence of liability. A disgraceful mistake.

  2. Brady Curry

    So 41 plaintiffs get on the “Lets Sue Cinemark” bus and 37 of them bail right before the bus crashes and will owe Cinemark nothing. Since they didn’t bail, the other 4 now owe Cinemark $700,000.00 for legal fees, expenses, etc. So I assume (I know that’s my second mistake) that had all bailed Cinemark would be stuck with the bill itself.

    In making an offer to the plaintiffs, which they thought was too low, was Cinemark factoring in having to pay the $700,000.00? Making the actual payout from Cinemark’s perspective $850,000.00.

    1. SHG Post author

      I would (see, me too) assume so. Conveying the spread of $700,000 loss to $150,000 gain can be hard. Most people just don’t see it as a $850k swing, as they can’t conceive of being saved the costs as the same thing as receiving a payout.

      1. Patrick Maupin

        Time will tell, but Cinemark themselves probably view the $700K as a sunk cost. It would be hard to fully recoup in any case, it’s less than half a percent of annual profit, and Cinemark probably doesn’t even want to think about how much it would cost to clean up the PR disaster if they tried.

        Even if they could win the PR battle on the sentiment “Hey, we’re not responsible for all the crazies that come into our theaters!”, the last thing they need the public to be thinking about is “all the crazies that come into our theaters!”

        Of course, one should never discount the ability of opposing counsel to flip the switch and put the winning defendant in asshole mode.

Comments are closed.