MGM Sues Victims From Shooting

So this is odd, of course we expect the shooting victims to hold MGM liable, as well as other organizations that was related to the concert, but now, MGM is taking legal action against all of the victims. They are not looking for money, just taking legal action to get them removed off the suit since they said they did everything that they could to prevent such a tragedy. Whether you agree or disagree, personally, it just muddies the water for MGM.

This is a no-win situation for MGM.

Yeah, seems kind of weird, but I would assume they have some of the best lawyers in the world working for them, so obviously they thought this was the right course of action. I don't blame them, but obviously I have no stake in this.

They reason they filed suit is because they control the jurisdiction now. They will also have say on who the judge is do they can get a favorable judge.

It is terrible PR but they need to not get sued or they will no longer be a company.

They don't want to prove the same set of facts over and over again in multiple jurisdictions where plaintiff's lawyers have selected a good forum.

This is horrible. Who in their right mind would even THINK of suing victims who got shot on their property? This is adding salt to a gaping wound.

Quote: Nathan

This is horrible. Who in their right mind would even THINK of suing victims who got shot on their property? This is adding salt to a gaping wound.

Reread the op.

Technically they are suing for a motion to be granted not suing the victims

Quote: Nathan

This is horrible. Who in their right mind would even THINK of suing victims who got shot on their property? This is adding salt to a gaping wound.

Dupe

The way this was framed on the news made it look like the MGM was suing the victims.

I'm open to considering evidence I haven't seen, but based on what I know now, I'm with the MGM/Mandalay on this one and I lose sympathy for the victims when they look for deep pockets to sue. Furthermore, it sounds reasonable to me that the MGM should have to fight this fight once only, not mount a separate defense for each lawsuit. If that was the reason they did this, I support it.

Quote: Wizard

The way this was framed on the news made it look like the MGM was suing the victims.

I'm open to considering evidence I haven't seen, but based on what I know now, I'm with the MGM/Mandalay on this one and I lose sympathy for the victims when they look for deep pockets to sue. Furthermore, it sounds reasonable to me that the MGM should have to fight this fight once only, not mount a separate defense for each lawsuit. If that was the reason they did this, I support it.

All the headlines look as if they say MGM Mirage is suing. Here is a fuller explanation:

MGM is technically "suing" the defendants, but not in the familiar "personal injury" sense. That is, MGM is not accusing the victims of carelessly causing MGM harm, nor are they demanding money from the bereaved. This case will not culminate in emotional testimony from shooting victims before a jury. It’s likely that this case will be decided by a judge, with little or no testimony required at all.

That’s because MGM filed for something called "declaratory judgment". The Declaratory Judgment Act permits a federal court to "declare the rights and other legal relations" of parties to "a case of actual controversy." A declaratory judgment can be "brought by any interested party" involving an actual controversy. It is appropriate where parties — like the victims — could presently sue, but just haven’t done so yet. NBC News

Yet despite that, MGM faces quite a few other harmful and possibly fatal issues from the shooting. Just by declaring that it is totally not responsible for the safety and security of the audience members, it is pinning its hopes on the government-certified security firm that it hired. It is crystal clear that the firm did not perform much of a job in the required planning and training for the event.

And as the front page of The Review-Journal shouted all over page one last Sunday, communications were a huge problem for first responders during the shooting. The lengthy article reported contradictions among officials and private experts. One of the most curious is the Metro officer who reported to the Mandalay security office and lost reception.

None of these deficiencies can persuade any tourist or even worker decide to be in the vicinity of an MGM Mirage destination.

If I had to guess at the outcome of this whole thing, MGM might have to pay some damages because they'll find some sort of actionable negligence, but it won't be any kind of whopping amount. And if it is, it will probably be reduced in the end. And how many years will this all take? Probably quite awhile.

I dont feel its mandalays fault

However one argument will be the shooter had committed no crimes in his whole life

Until he loses millions at mandalay specifically. That mandalay enticed him to continue losing with comps and amenities

That no support was given to curb his addiction

Basically the argument would be mandalay bay is responsible for the creation of a monster

Its an argument that could have weight with the right jury

Wasn't the concert venue's property owned by MGM? Should't patrons who visit the Mandala Bay be subject to search including their bags similar to the airport? The security is lax in most casinos. Ton's of surveillance cameras and security personnel but there is no way of determining who is armed.

My ultimate fear will be for someone or a team to enter the WSOP Championship event and situate themselves in the Amazon room and either detonate or start shooting. Wearing bulky clothing, jacket, sunglasses and big backpacks are the norm for poker players so anyone who fits that description will be in the thousands.

Metal detectors and Xray machines is in the near future for casinos

Quote: Wizard

I'm open to considering evidence I haven't seen, but based on what I know now, I'm with the MGM/Mandalay on this one and I lose sympathy for the victims when they look for deep pockets to sue. Furthermore, it sounds reasonable to me that the MGM should have to fight this fight once only, not mount a separate defense for each lawsuit. If that was the reason they did this, I support it.

The problem I have is that MGM wants to take it straight to a federal judge, while skipping right over Nevada courts.

Quote: Vegasrider

The security is lax in most casinos. Ton's of surveillance cameras and security personnel but there is no way of determining who is armed.


Metal detectors and Xray machines is in the near future for casinos

Not likely. Security at casinos is probably better than any other public venue in the Country except Government buildings.

There is no way of telling who's armed at a grocery store, school, restaurant and many more places.

You live with risk every day. You have a higher chance of dying in a car accident tomorrow than being killed at a casino.


ZCore13

Quote: TomG

The problem I have is that MGM wants to take it straight to a federal judge, while skipping right over Nevada courts.

I don't know much about it, but if that's true, I would agree.