That's a bold move, Cotton

[Fijimn]

MGM sues the victims of the Vegas shooting--seeking a declaratory judgment that a federal law preempt state law.

The article does a good job explaining the action. MGM is not seeking monetary damages. But the suit asks federal judge to declare that a federal law is applicable to the plaintiff's claims. However, MGM has to go through the process of serving these peoples with citations and the suit. It's a bold move because if the federal court punts on the issue (which i suspect that it will) and the case gets to trial, all the plaintiffs are going to testify about how tragic the event was and then how they had to relive the events after being served with MGM's lawsuit. Plus the PR hit.


http://fortune.com/2018/07/17/mgm-sues-las-vegas-shooting-victims/

 

[FSUDoles]

Wow, that's a really bad look for MGM. So the venue's "on the ground" security firm was vetted and cleared by Homeland Security....what on earth does that have to do with the ability of the shooter to amass the arsenal he accumulated over the course of days under the collective noses of Mandalay Bay security?
I can't believe MGM gets a favorable ruling here....and now they need to prepare themselves for the backlash/maelstrom they know is going to follow...in the form of horrible PR, cancellations, etc.
Even if they win, they lose. This isn't going to end well...

 

[kc78]

I have a hard time holding MGM or the promoters of the concert liable for what happened as I don't see any negligence. It's not like hotels should be screening the luggage we bring in and I'm not certain I want to go through TSA just to get to my room. But I agree, this is a very bad look and will kill them on PR.

 

[FSUDoles]

I have a hard time holding MGM or the promoters of the concert liable for what happened as I don't see any negligence. It's not like hotels should be screening the luggage we bring in and I'm not certain I want to go through TSA just to get to my room. But I agree, this is a very bad look and will kill them on PR.

KC,

Paddock wasn't the first individual to stockpile automatic weapons at Mandalay....there was a prior incident in November of 2014. That known, perhaps different security measures could've have been put in place in 2017. Some flags with housekeeping refusal for days on end should've added to the suspicion. Metal detectors at Mandalay would've prevented this....I've stayed there...guards are at every elevator bank 24/7/365...Mandalay security, or the lack thereof, has some responsibility here.

 

[NDallasRuss]

So the venue's "on the ground" security firm was vetted and cleared by Homeland Security....what on earth does that have to do with the ability of the shooter to amass the arsenal he accumulated over the course of days under the collective noses of Mandalay Bay security?

I read that: "The basis of the argument stems from a 2002 federal act which extends liability protection to any company that uses “anti-terrorism” technology to help prevent and respond to mass violence." So, using a qualified firm could provide MGM with some protection when the victims and their families come after the hotel.

https://splinternews.com/mgm-resort...67.521948406.1531750334-1733486746.1525902266

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

KC,

Paddock wasn't the first individual to stockpile automatic weapons at Mandalay....there was a prior incident in November of 2014. That known, perhaps different security measures could've have been put in place in 2017. Some flags with housekeeping refusal for days on end should've added to the suspicion. Metal detectors at Mandalay would've prevented this....I've stayed there...guards are at every elevator bank 24/7/365...Mandalay security, or the lack thereof, has some responsibility here.

Ehhh...that’s a plaintiffs’ lawyer’s position.

To the original post, I would hate to have to make that call. The tough part is the media is so bad these days with clickbait headlines all most people will take away is that MGM is suing victims.

 

[Fijimn]

Ehhh...that’s a plaintiffs’ lawyer’s position.

To the original post, I would hate to have to make that call. The tough part is the media is so bad these days with clickbait headlines all most people will take away is that MGM is suing victims.

Well - they are technically. I think that they named people in the complaint that haven't filed suit. Further, the bases for MGM's dec action is tenuous, at best. Generally, you cannot file a dec action to get a ruling that a particular statute should apply. Further, there a several abstention doctrines that the federal court can easily apply to dismiss the declaratory action. I find it very strange.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Well - they are technically. I think that they named people in the complaint that haven't filed suit. Further, the bases for MGM's dec action is tenuous, at best. Generally, you cannot file a dec action to get a ruling that a particular statute should apply. Further, there a several abstention doctrines that the federal court can easily apply to dismiss the declaratory action. I find it very strange.

You are correct. When I meant was people may read the headlines and think MGM is suing victims to recover money.

 

[KitingHigh]

Well - they are technically. I think that they named people in the complaint that haven't filed suit. Further, the bases for MGM's dec action is tenuous, at best. Generally, you cannot file a dec action to get a ruling that a particular statute should apply. Further, there a several abstention doctrines that the federal court can easily apply to dismiss the declaratory action. I find it very strange.

At least one victim has filed a suit.

 

[Fijimn]

At least one victim has filed a suit.

Yes, but I believe that MGM named 1,000 defendants in MGM v. Acosta, et al. Not all of those defendants filed suit or are represented by counsel.

 

[KitingHigh]

Yes, but I believe that MGM named 1,000 defendants in MGM v. Acosta, et al. Not all of those defendants filed suit or are represented by counsel.

Yeah,

It was a horrible act of terrorism (I don't see how anyone can claim it isn't terrorism), but it's also unfortunate how litigious we have become. I think this may be a smart move on their part, but they should have waited to see if more lawsuits were coming.

I'd doubt the bad PR will hurt them in the long run though. People like gambling far too much.

 

[OrlandNole]

Yeah,

It was a horrible act of terrorism (I don't see how anyone can claim it isn't terrorism), but it's also unfortunate how litigious we have become. I think this may be a smart move on their part, but they should have waited to see if more lawsuits were coming.

I'd doubt the bad PR will hurt them in the long run though. People like gambling far too much.

Yeah, I can see both sides of this. Which is worse, the pre-emptive litigation, or being subject to hundreds, if not thousands of multi-million dollar lawsuits.

Unless MGM was grossly negligent, for example they were aware the shooter had a stockpile of weapons in his room, they shouldn't be held at fault. From what I recall, their security staff acted immediately and selflessly

 

[fsu1jreed]

I have a hard time holding MGM or the promoters of the concert liable for what happened as I don't see any negligence.

I heard on the radio that MGM's armed security guards got to the room early on in the event but rather than trying to stop the guy they decided to wait for the police........but don't quote me on that.

 

[seminoledq]

MGM must have gotten killed right after the announcement yesterday because their PR team is hard at work on email and social media this morning tying to explain what these lawsuits mean.

 

[NolesOnTop]

From what I read, the reason they are suing is to get the case moved to federal court. They don't want to litigate the claim for their negligence in state court.