I tried to write a joke about this, and how the only reason is sexism.

Here’s an explanation:

It still reads “write” to me.

Federal. The policy issue was called out by Judge Jackson. He indicated that in this case, Holmes conduct was sufficiently extreme that the Defendant’s conduct was not a substantial factor in causing the harm. But that analysis, under Colorado law, requires the court to engage in a policy analysis.

Not everyone who loses in litigation has filed a baseless claim. Remember that the burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence.

Juries, not judges determine ultimate fault. In this case, Judge Jackson already concluded that there was sufficient evidence to get to the jury on the question of fault.

Colorado law imposes a duty on landowners to take reasonable steps to protect their customers from foreseeable harms, including criminal conduct. This can include doing things like hiring security guards or putting an alarm system in place.

Judge Jackson found that the plaintiffs met their burden of showing evidence of liability. All they argued was that the theater should have had alarms on the fire exits and a security guard.

Yep. But if the client lies, or says that the facts are a, b, and c, when they are x, q, and h, the lawyer is limited by the fact that he or she wasn’t there to see what happened. If, as the case progresses, it becomes clear that the facts don’t support the claim, the lawyer’s job is to counsel the client of that fact…

Let me add one more point.

Why?

Colorado law imposes a duty on landowners to keep their premises safe for their customers. These plaintiffs said that the theater should have put alarms on the fire exits and had a security guard. The judge initially found that the evidence of liability was sufficient to let a jury consider the issue. Then, in a later…

They aren’t out their legal fees. Their insurance company, which is in the business of managing risk and calculating premiums, is out the legal fees that it paid as part of the contract of insurance for which it analyzed the risk and set a premium. IOW, the insurance company lost a tiny bit of money this year because…

This isn’t a frivolous claim. Judge Jackson’s order makes it clear that there was sufficient evidence to support the claims on everything but causation, and the order also says that he is concluding that in this case, Holmes’ conduct was so extreme that the theater’s conduct was not a substantial factor in causing the…

1986. That’s the year we got “tort reform” a series of legislative fixes to make it harder for people to sue businesses.

You know, it’s amazing what happens when you reach out and find the source documents. Judge Jackson reviewed the Complaints filed in Federal Court. He held that the Plaintiffs had stated a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6). That alone indicates that the claims were not frivolous, groundless, or vexatious.

So here’s the thing with these cases. Causation requires proof of foreseeability. However, you’re not required to prove that the specific mechanism of injury is foreseeable, only that some harm of the same type is foreseeable.

In the state court case, the judge denied the summary judgment motions and it went to the jury. That suggests that it wasn’t groundless (there being genuine issues of material fact in dispute and all that).

It wasn’t groundless. It would be groundless if there were no facts that could support the claim. Colorado law imposes a duty on landowners to maintain a safe premises, including against criminal acts. Here, there was evidence that Cinemark had “security” but failed to have them verify that doors were closed and…

Actually, the theater isn’t out anything.