Las Vegas: MGM Sues Victims of Mass Shootings and Denies Responsibility!

Youtube
image_pdfimage_print

In a precedent-setting lawsuit, MGM Resorts, the parent company that owns Mandalay Bay Hotel and the land where the concert took place, sued more than 1,000 victims of the October 2017 mass shooting, in a pre-emptive strike to prevent lawsuits, as MGM denies any responsibility.  MGM is not seeking money from the victims.  MGM is claiming that a 2002 federal law extends liability protection to any company that uses ‘anti-terrorism’ technology or services that can prevent and respond to mass violence, and MGM hired security for the concert that was certified by the Department of Homeland Security.  A victims’ attorney says that only the security company is protected from liability under the federal law and MGM is still on the hook for liability.  Critics have pointed out that MGM may have filed their case in federal court for the purpose of ‘judge shopping’ in order to find a sympathetic judge.

Survivors of the deadliest mass shooting in US history are expressing their outrage with MGM Resorts International after the company sued the surviving victims of the shooting, claiming it has “no liability of any kind” in the Oct. 1 massacre, USA Today reports. An MGM spokeswoman said the company has been “focused on the recovery of those impacted by the shooting” while also claiming that the attack was “unforeseeable.”

“The unforeseeable events of October 1st affected thousands of people in Las Vegas and throughout North America,” MGM Resorts spokeswoman Debra DeShong said in a statement. “From the day of this tragedy, we have focused on the recovery of those impacted by the despicable act of one evil individual.”

Attorneys representing the victims said the lawsuit was “a stunt” that probably won’t survive a challenge in court and accused the company of “blaming the victims.” One lawyer said MGM’s challenge was the most “reprehensible” action taken by a corporation to avoid paying damages that he’s seen in his multi-decade career.

Brian Claypool, a survivor of the rampage who represents 75 survivors and victims’ family members, called MGM’s lawsuit “a stunt” that won’t survive a court challenge.

“I am still in therapy once a week, and this is their way of trying to solve the problem,” he said. “It’s shifting responsibility and minimizing their blatant negligence.”

Robert Eglet, whose firm represents hundreds of people in the case, dismissed MGM’s claim as “outrageous” and accused the company of trying to intimidate victims. Very few of his clients have filed suit and some never will, he said.

“In my 30 years of practice, this is the most reprehensible behavior I have ever seen a defendant engage in,” Eglet said. “They are trying to victimize these people twice.”

MGM is arguing that the security company it contracted with for the Harvest festival (MGM owns the lot across the street from the Mandalay Bay hotel and resort) took all the precautions required by the Department of Homeland Security. It has also argued that security staff in the hotel responded promptly and in accordance with post-9/11 protocols for mass casualty events.

MGM’s lawsuit claims the case must be dealt with in federal court under terms of the post-9/11 Safety Act, which provides incentives for development and deployment of anti-terrorism technologies. The company says the security firm it contracted for the concert, CSC, was approved by the Department of Homeland Security, thus released from liability under the act.

But the victims’ attorneys said these guidelines are irrelevant when it comes to the lawsuit.

“The Safety Act doesn’t apply to them, it applies to CSC,” Eglet said. “MGM has nothing to do with CSC.”

Eglet said there was no reason to file the suit since the issue of jurisdiction is already being argued in court. He said MGM is “judge shopping.”

Read full article here…

Related Post

Visit our Classified ads.

Check out our Classified ads at the bottom of this page.

Recent stories & commentary

Classifieds

For classified advertising rates and terms, click here. The appearance of ads on this site does not signify endorsement by the publisher. We do not attempt to verify the accuracy of statements made therein or vouch for the integrity of advertisers. However, we will investigate complaints from readers and remove any message we find to be misleading or that promotes anything fraudulent, illegal, or unethical.

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of