Discussion
  • Read More
    SqarrClover Hope
    6/30/16 3:51pm

    ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      schuretteSqarr
      6/30/16 3:58pm

      That’s such a staggering amount of money if those families will have to pay, many will be destroyed financially. It’s unbelievably cruel on every conceivable level... Whoever made this decision is fucking satan.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Doncha Knowschurette
      6/30/16 3:59pm

      Idk, even the devil has standards. This is just ruthless.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    OvdanyakadClover Hope
    6/30/16 3:54pm

    Just because you can doesn’t mean you SHOULD.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      whskygirlOvdanyakad
      6/30/16 3:58pm

      As the story notes, it is a tactic to keep the plaintiffs from appealing. I see it all the time. The plaintiffs will agree to not appeal, and the claim for fees and costs will be dismissed. And, yeah, you should if you are out 700K for a frivolous claim. I see people all the time bitch about what a sue-happy society we have become, and this is an example. I know they are victims and family of victims, but we need to get past the idea that every time there is a large company involved, you should sue (particularly when the large company is not responsible for the criminal’s actions). They should have never brought the lawsuit and likely only did so because some plaintiff’s attorney convinced them that they could get a bunch of money.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Ovdanyakadwhskygirl
      6/30/16 4:03pm

      So which part of my statement is wrong?

      Read it again: Just because you can doesn’t mean you SHOULD.

      I am talking to everyone, all shitheads everywhere.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    randilynisFINDILYNClover Hope
    6/30/16 4:12pm

    About Cinemark Theatres

    Headquartered in Plano, TX, Cinemark Holdings, Inc. is a leader in the motion picture exhibition industry with 516 theatres and 5,840 screens in the U.S. and Latin America as of March 31, 2016.

    • Our circuit is the third largest in the U.S. with 338 theatres and 4,551 screens in 41 states.
    • We ranked either #1 or #2 by box office revenues in 22 of our top 30 U.S. markets as of 12/31/2015.
    • We are the most geographically diverse circuit in Latin America with 178 theatres and 1,289 screens in 14 countries.
    • We have a presence in 13 of the top 15 metropolitan areas in South America as of 12/31/2015.
    • So we could afford to forgo repayment of legal fees.

    (I added the last part)

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      comeonpoppetrandilynisFINDILYN
      6/30/16 4:32pm

      According to many a lawyer-adjacent commenter here: it’s just a tactic, GAWD. WHY GET SO UPSET BY HOW THE LAW WORKS! GAWD.

      Which, I mean, okay. But a) they are a public-traded hugely profitable company and can afford to eat this and b) how much bad PR is this going to generate? So, sure, lawyer-adjacent commenters I am certain to dismiss, you are technically correct. And yet.

      And.

      Yet.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      randilynisFINDILYNcomeonpoppet
      6/30/16 4:37pm

      EXACTLY.

      (The “just because you can” comment had it right but this nails it down)

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Ken YadiggitClover Hope
    6/30/16 3:58pm

    Cinemark offered them free movie passes instead.

    jesus skateboarding christ....

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      smithkidKen Yadiggit
      6/30/16 4:20pm

      As unsavory as it is, I get asking for the fees because it’s a big chunk of change and they could waive the fees with an agreement not to appeal.

      But then I read this and obviously, the higher-ups and Lawyers are just horrible human beings. Movie passes!? That’s fucking insulting. Don’t want to sit down with them - fine - but offering them movie passes in place of a sit down. I just can't

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      AnglKatsmithkid
      6/30/16 4:25pm

      Yeah, the lawyer in me can understand why they want to recover fees. But the way they’ve treated the families all along...it’s just horrible.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    opheeliaClover Hope
    6/30/16 3:57pm

    Corporations are people, so how do we punch this one in the face?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      randilynisFINDILYNopheelia
      6/30/16 4:10pm

      Boycott?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      bubbleBOY2008opheelia
      6/30/16 4:11pm

      By not supporting it.... A hard concept not quite understood by the people of this country where we support the most vial and corrupt blood sucking companies and conglomerate, tax evading corporations putting a bigger burden on the middle class.


      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    anyah8sbunniesClover Hope
    6/30/16 3:56pm

    Holy shit.

    While I agree that the theatre was not responsible for the lack of security... I mean, what theatre has security?

    But are you fucking kidding me with going after the families!????

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Frankieanyah8sbunnies
      6/30/16 3:59pm

      But as I read it, it was the cost of defending themselves against the families claim that the theater should have had security.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      arden1anyah8sbunnies
      6/30/16 4:03pm

      to be fair...the families did go after them first.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    JustSmileandNodClover Hope
    6/30/16 3:56pm

    You’d think they’d have a marketing or PR person step in with the legal team and be like, “You know, you might want to rethink this strategy...”

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      LouderThanTeslasJustSmileandNod
      6/30/16 4:02pm

      More like “JESUS CHRIST CUT OFF LEGAL’S PHONELINES AND LOCK THEM IN THE BUILDING UNTIL I GET OVER THERE.”

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      MalcireJustSmileandNod
      6/30/16 4:47pm

      If they did you would think that they would have handled the shooting aftermath better.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Marzipan in your Pie PlateClover Hope
    6/30/16 4:04pm

    Yikes. Ok, from a business point of view, why wouldn’t they? They were not actually responsible for the shooting. (And I don’t really understand why the family sued them in the first place unless they were not getting medical expenses covered or something, because if it was just a need to blame someone, I don’t get it—there was already a clear person to blame.)

    But then why did it cost $700,000 to say, “Yeah no, we didn’t break any laws. Metal detectors and security pat-downs are not currently required in theaters.”? Oh, because the legal system is pretty messed up, and if they had been held liable for 12 deaths, it would have cost them way more than $700K.

    In the end, I don’t think they are doing anything objective wrong. Just completely heartless and cruel.

    Which is why corporations should not be considered people. Corporations are just heartless and cruel tools to make lots of money, and they don’t care if your whole world has already been destroyed. There’s an obligation to the shareholders, dammit!

    Ugh.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      dcgirl13Marzipan in your Pie Plate
      6/30/16 5:13pm

      Well, it’s a tactic to keep the families from appealing in hope that they get a jury that feels so bad for the families that they find the theater should have had airport level security. Which based on the comments here seems like a thing that could happen.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Marzipan in your Pie Platedcgirl13
      6/30/16 5:18pm

      Related, I think we WILL be walking through metal detectors for most public gatherings soon: movies, clubs, big box stores. We’re already doing it for big sporting events and concerts. Not sure how I feel about that.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    KfishClover Hope
    6/30/16 4:00pm

    Ick. You won. Maybe let it go? Yet another company to not give my money to. There are two big name theaters close to me. There is the one with the beer and the one with the good popcorn. Guess I will be having beer and substandard popcorn at the movies now.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      moopidooKfish
      6/30/16 4:13pm

      But they won at a cost of 700,000. If you had lost 700,000 dollars in order not to lose even more money due to charges that were unreasonable in the first place, would you feel victorious, or would you feel that you deserved to be paid the money spent on defending yourself?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Kfishmoopidoo
      6/30/16 4:35pm

      I do understand their desire to balance their books. Fiscally and legally, perhaps it even makes sense. But it's really cold to sue families of victims who were gunned down in your theater, from a human point of view. If it were me, I would rather have good publicity and loyal customers, than recoup legal fees.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    TrakzClover Hope
    6/30/16 4:06pm

    Hey, at least they keep their assholery consistent:

    In 2008, former CEO Alan Stock donated $9,999 toward the successful passage of California’s Proposition 8, an initiative restricting the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and overturning the California Supreme Court’s ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

    -Wikipedia

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      VulcansAreHeartbreakersTrakz
      6/30/16 4:36pm

      Sooo many people arguing for the sake of the poor corporation. I’m never not surprised by the way Americans will defend corporations. We have people here honestly calling the victims of this tragedy ‘greedy’ for going after the theater. And they don’t even know all the details. Perhaps there was something the theater could have done, but we don’t know that. It’s like that hot coffee Mc. Donalds lawsuit - often times the victims are issued gag orders because of the way these lawsuits look on the surface. Businesses know pro-corporate America will take their side. And here we have Jezzies (of all people) taking the side of an anti-LGBT corporation.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Kendall101VulcansAreHeartbreakers
      6/30/16 4:45pm

      The question isnt if there was something that the theater could have do, but if there was anything that they provably should have done. The issue I have here is with how few are casting blame at the families legal council. If you find yourself in this situation, it is a situation that should have been avoided by competent council, and seems like there may (and definitely should) be a case for malpractice, thus deflecting liability to the families lawyers (not properly informing them of risks involved, pursuing a case that they should have known better than).

      No I do not think this is a moral move by the theaters, nor even a smart one, but at the very least the legal team should receive a bar review, and many should probably have their licence to practice revoked. (IANAL)

      Reply
      <