Ok, WTF?

[Gob]

I'm sure one of our legal bods can explain why this is all good and proper, and not fucking batshit mental and evil, as it would appear to anyone living in a sane country.

MGM Resorts International has sued hundreds of victims of the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history in a bid to avoid liability for the gunfire that rained down from its Mandalay Bay casino-resort in Las Vegas in October 2017.

The company argues in lawsuits filed in Nevada, California, New York and other states that it has “no liability of any kind” to survivors or families of slain victims under a federal law enacted after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks.

The lawsuits target victims who have sued the company and voluntarily dismissed their claims or have threatened to sue after a gunman shattered the windows of his Mandalay Bay suite and fired on a crowd gathered below for a country music festival.


High-stakes gambler Stephen Paddock killed 58 people and injured hundreds more before killing himself. Victims with active lawsuits against MGM don’t face the company’s legal claim.

MGM says the 2002 law limits liabilities when a company or group uses services certified by the US Department of Homeland Security and mass attacks occur. The company says it is not liable because its security vendor for the concert, Contemporary Services Corporation, was federally certified at the time of the 1 October shooting.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -liability

[Burning Petard]

Yes, GOB, my brain hurts too. I seem to be in a mental loop the just digs a deeper rut each time around. MGM is suing some people. That means they are asking a court to agree that these people are damaging them. It seems the damage is caused by not bringing suit against MGM, but they have talked about it, or have talked about it and decided not to..

I will never be able to think like a lawyer. Some body shoot me if I ever to manage that feat.

snailgate (1 4 3. I saw 'Won't you be my neighbor?' yesterday.)

[Big RR]

I won't opine on MGM's liability, mainly because I don't want to research the law, but I think MGM's position is that suits have been threatened (even filed and withdrawn, likely without any prejudice) for some potential liability dating back to the shootings in 2017. Thus, they are facing a significant potential liability, and their accountants are likely making them escrow a good deal of money to cover this potential liability. They are now going to court and asking them to decide whether they have any liability and issue a declaratory judgment stating this, so that this will not be hanging over their heads (and the escrowed funds can be released). ordinarily a court will not entertain such a suit absent actual threats and a likelihood of litigation, but that appears to be the case here. The people mentioned are named as defendants because they have a right to be heard.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Of course MGM is trying tell us that it's for the victims. Per NYT:

In a statement, an MGM spokeswoman, Debra DeShong, said that the company filed the lawsuits and sought to move litigation over the shooting from state to federal court because doing so “provides those affected with the opportunity for a timely resolution. Years of drawn-out litigation and hearings are not in the best interest of victims, the community and those still healing.”

Oh please. Your president would be proud of you, and maybe Debra is auditioning for the day that even Sarah Fuckabee Sanders decides that she can't take it any more.

In the meantime, and in the same way that many Canadians are making individual decisions to avoid US products, it appears that many are planning to eschew MGM and their offerings.

[Big RR]

this is pretty self serving as well:

We collectively view this as a bullying tactic to intimidate the survivors who are rightfully seeking social change and redress through the litigation process,” said Claypool, who represents dozens of victims.

(emphasis added.

Social change? somehow I doubt that; they're seeking compensation (and compensation that they may be rightfully entitled to).

[Guinevere]

I'm a lawyer and I can barely follow it. What a load of utter bullocks.

[Lord Jim]

Victims with active lawsuits against MGM don’t face the company’s legal claim.

Looks like the "mistake" these folks made was to not just go ahead and sue the bastards...

[Big RR]

Perhaps; this looks like the "shit or get off the pot" call.

[Scooter]

They have filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in federal court .

In a nutshell:

The SAFETY Act of 2002 gives the federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over any claims arising from an act of terrorism where qualified anti-terrorism technologies (QAATs) were deployed, and where injuries were proximately caused by the seller of the QAATs (essentially any product, service, process, system, etc. used in anti-terrorism activities, there's a whole certification process at DHS).

Because the shooting meets the Act's definition of act of terrorism, because the security services provided by CSC, the MGM's security contractor, have been certified as QAATs by DHS, and because the actual and threatened claims fault some aspect of CSC's security apparatus for their injuries, MGM is asking the federal court to declare that claims arising from the shooting are subject to the SAFETY Act.

If they succeed, then any claims arising from the shooting may only proceed in accordance with the Act. The federal district courts are explicitly given original and exclusive jurisdiction. Plaintiffs are limited to one cause of action for all of their losses related to the terrorist act. And that action can only be brought against the seller of the QAATs (CSC in this case). Actions against the buyer of the QAATs (MGM in this case), the buyer's contractors, the seller's suppliers or contractors, any other users of the QAATs, or any other person or entity, is expressly prohibited by regulations to the Act.

Perversely, while the Act says that the only cause of action can be against the seller of the QAATs, it also says that the seller may use the government contractor defence, even if the QAATs in question were sold to a non-governmental buyer.

So the plaintiffs will get nothing, which does not displease me. Suing the hotel made them look like they were desperate to find someone to blame, whether justifiable or not..

[ex-khobar Andy]

Yes, but . . .

I am not sure what dollar responsibility MGM really has here. As it happens, I am staying in a hotel at the moment because I am temporarily homeless. We have sold one house (Columbia MO) and are in the process of buying another (Louisville KY). We hope to close next week. Because we travelled with a lot of stuff, including two cats who are now in lodgings of their own, we have brought approximately eight suitcases and boxes into the room. We make our own bed and there is no housekeeping service here which is fine by me. It's temporary accommodation. I could have (but didn't of course) brought half a dozen automatic weapons in here and created a massacre of sorts. I don't think that the hotel could or should be held responsible if I did.

Having said that, I think that defending themselves by suing (if that is the correct legal word) the victims and their families is a PR disaster. I think they have a perfectly valid defense which, although most of us would want to see the victims made whole as much as possible, would probably work in front of a reasonable jury. Deep pockets should not equate to guilt.

The real villains are of course the lax gun laws which enabled the LV asshole to amass his arsenal, and the dumb health insurance system which means that the 'luckier' ones of the victims will probably have their immediate medical needs met, but many will not and may be driven to bankruptcy. I don't want hotels to have to operate a TSA-style search of their customers' luggage.

[Sue U]

I've got a lot to say about this but no time now. Suffice it to say that MGM is trying to weasel out of any liability on any theory -- not just whether it should have known about the shooter, but other forms of negligent security with respect to both the hotel and concert venue and in the response once the shooting began. Hope to be more expansive if I can get some time tomorrow.

[RayThom]

I would hope that MGM will issue Kevlar vests to all who attend future entertainment venues.

It's the right thing to do.

[Crackpot]

So What did Meade do wrong here?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Not me... that MG mechanic fellow