my first thought...wow, lucky they got caught in Australia where there is no death penalty rather than Indonesia where they would be promptly sentenced to death row.

Well, that and don’t get caught.

Most of the comments on this post really shock me. Colorado is very gun-friendly state. Cinemark is a theater company, not a security company. It’s not their fault that the US has ridiculous gun laws and it’s not their fault that it’s easy for nutjobs and sociopaths to easily acquire assault rifles. To suggest that…

What retail chains have metal detectors? I’ve never in my life had to walk through one at a retail chain. Maybe there’s a few somewhere that use them, but they sire as hell aren’t common

The optics of this are bad but I don’t think people realize this is just a piece of paper that says they owe them money. The court isn’t going to try to collect from them or force them to pay. And Cinemark will likely let this go. When you are awarded a judgment it is literally a piece of paper that says you won. The…

Call me a heartless bastard, but I’m OK with this. No matter how sympathetic these people are, they were trying to get Cinemark - who did nothing wrong - to give them money.

I know I will be called a horrible person but I have don’t have that much of a problem with this. I really hope that Cinemark doesn’t come collecting but if they do I REALLLLLLLLY wish they had a way to extract money from the attorneys as well. The attorneys who took that original case should have some serious eyeing…

An observation: paying legal costs (not to be confused with attorneys’ fees) to the prevailing party is standard. Cinemark is the prevailing party. I’m not seeing anything wrong here.

But the movie theater did not do anything wrong, so why should they be liable to compensate these victims of James Holmes? I’m as plaintiff friendly as they come, but this case was just ridiculous.

People here are in a tizzy over this, and I get it.

“On a conference call, the federal judge overseeing the case told the plaintiffs’ attorneys that he was prepared to rule in the theater chain’s favor. He urged the plaintiffs to settle with Cinemark, owner of the Century Aurora 16 multiplex where the July 20, 2012, shooting occurred. They had 24 hours.” So in other…

Isn’t it normal for people or groups that lose lawsuits to pay legal fees?

Which is why you have been failed by reporters this time. As of today, no one has been ordered to pay anything.

We need to do something about gun violence in this country. Security at every place of gathering isn’t it and based solely on what I read here I agree with the ruling Cinemark isn’t liable. As for legal fees, that’s a shame and that’s tort reform at work. Be careful what you wish for.

This is unlikely to be paid by anyone in the end. The successful defendant in obviously frivolous lawsuits such as this will often use these cost awards as leverage to get the losing party to forgo launching any appeal.

I believe this is the case at issue: http://www.aurorasentinel.com/asuplads/D.-Co…

I hope these people never have to pay a cent of what they now owe Cinemark, but come on, they should’ve never filed a lawsuit against Cinemark to begin with. (Honestly, whoever advised them to do so should be sued and they should pay Cinemark for their cynicism and attempts to profit off of profound trauma.) I just…

Both cases ended with absolutely zero legal liability for the theater, no visible policy changes, and a dizzying legal bill

While I do not think it’s fair to ruin the lives further of those who were injured or lost loved ones in the attack, it would be unreasonable to hold the movie theater responsible. If the organization is wealthy I’d likely let the court fees go.

I’m trying to understand why people are mad at Cinemark—it looks like not only did they offer to settle (which they 100% shouldn’t have had to do), but they also let the plaintiffs drop out—only 4 of the original 40 plaintiffs are responsible. Those 4 were unreasonable. They were wrong. And I am sympathetic—their…