Judge orders merging of Aurora lawsuits against movie chain

A District Judge consolidated seven lawsuits brought against Cinemark, the theater chain where 12 were shot and 58 wounded during the premier of 'The Dark Night Rises' this summer. Cinemark is accused of lax security.

Mary Altaffer/AP
Stephen Barton, a survivor of the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colo, speaks to reporters after a meeting with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg at City as part of a Mayors Against Illegal Guns program, Oct. 3, 2012 in New York. Other survivors of the shooting are filing lawsuits against Cinemark theater chain.

A federal judge in Denver on Monday ordered the consolidation of seven lawsuits brought against the Cinemark theater chain by survivors and relatives of those killed in a shooting rampage in which 12 moviegoers were slain as they watched a Batman film.

US District Judge R. Brooke Jackson also set May 5, 2014, as the earliest start date that any of the personal injury and wrongful death claims against Cinemark could proceed to trial.

Merging the cases and setting a tentative calendar for the litigation came during the first court hearing stemming from civil suits accusing Texas-based Cinemark USA Inc of lax theater security in connection with the July 20 massacre.

Twelve people were killed and 58 wounded when a gunman opened fire on Cinemark patrons in Aurora,Colorado, during a midnight screening of "The Dark Knight Rises."

The suspect, 24-year-old former neuroscience graduate student James Holmes, is charged with dozens of counts of murder and attempted murder. The criminal case against Holmes is in a preliminary stage with no trial date set. He has not yet entered a plea and defense lawyers have said in court that Holmes suffers from an unspecified mental illness.

In addition to four personal injury suits and three wrongful death complaints consolidated for pretrial proceedings in federal court by Jackson, a separate lawsuit has been filed in state court on behalf of a dozen victims and victims' families.

Christina Habas, an attorney representing three of the 13 individual plaintiffs in the federal cases, told Jackson she anticipates adding additional plaintiffs.

The idea behind consolidating numerous similar lawsuits is to streamline pretrial proceedings and avoid duplication of discovery motions and depositions.

The lawsuits stemming from the mass shooting in July accuse Cinemark of failing to take proper precautions to prevent such an outbreak of violence.

The plaintiffs claim, among other things, that the theater should have had more security in place because it was aware of previous crimes in or near the multiplex, including "assaults and robberies" and at least one gang shooting.

Cinemark has filed a motion seeking dismissal of the lawsuits, contending the company and its employees could not have anticipated having to deal with "a madman's mass murder" at the theater.

"It would be patently unfair, and legally unsound, to impose on Cinemark, a private business in the entertainment industry, the duty and burden to have foreseen and prevented the criminal equivalent of a meteor falling from the sky," the motion states.

U. District Court Magistrate Judge Michael Hegarty, who is assisting Jackson with the cases, told lawyers for both sides he plans to rule in January on the motion to dismiss.

Cinemark attorney Kevin Taylor said he cannot fully prepare a defense until law enforcement authorities return surveillance video footage from at least 16 cameras that the company had at the theater complex and until he is allowed to see statements police took from hundreds of persons at the crime scene.

A state judge presiding over the murder case against Holmes has denied a request by lawyers for several survivors for a court order requiring prosecutors to turn over sealed evidence in the criminal investigation for review in the civil suits.

Writing by Steve Gorman; Editing by Dan Whitcomb and Lisa Shumaker

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Judge orders merging of Aurora lawsuits against movie chain
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today