Cinemark should not be sued in civil court for the shooting rampage and deaths last July in its Aurora, Colorado theater at a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises, says a federal magistrate judge. Cinemark moved in late October to have the civil claims dismissed. At the time, the exhibitor argued that each suit “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as a matter of law,” arguing that what happened was not its fault. In a dense 22-page recommendation (read it here) filed Thursday, Judge Michael Hegarty said the consolidated negligence and wrongful death civil lawsuits by victims and their families should be dismissed. Instead he suggests that because the plaintiffs’ “state plausible claims,” they may have a further case under the Colorado Premises Liability Act. ”Absent allegations that Plaintiffs’ injuries occurred other than on Defendant’s property and did not arise out of a condition of the property or by activities conducted on the property, and in accordance
with prevailing case law, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ claims for negligence and wrongful death are abrogated by the CPLA and must be dismissed,” says the recommendation to the district court. All of the lawsuits cite the lack of proper security at the July 20 opening day midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises at the Aurora Century 16 multiplex as being responsible for the shooting by alleged gunman James Holmes. The rampage left 12 dead and 58 wounded. The CPLA covers injuries that occur to an individual on another person’s property but it does not allow wrongful death claims. U.S. District Judge R. Brook Jackson melded the lawsuits together in mid-November of last year. The judge also set a trial date of May 5, 2014 for the case. Now that Judge Hegarty has made his recommendations to Judge Jackson, both sides in the case have two weeks to make arguments to him on the matter. After that, the judge can agree with the recommendations and dismiss the claims or dismiss the recommendation and move forward with the case. The latter would inevitably see an appeal action by Cinemark.
Related: Accused Colorado Theater Shooter’s Arraignment Pushed Back To March
Deadline's Dominic Patten - tip him here.


I’m glad that this shameful money grab has failed. These people should be ashamed of themselves.
If a visitor had slipped on a wet floor, there would be a valid lawsuit because the landlord allowed a situation that was hazardous to their safety.
The theater allowed an armed gunman on to the property which allowed a situation hazardous to the safety of visitors.
The theater was VERY negligent, liable and culpable in allowing this situation which was hazardous to the safety of everyone on the premises.
You’re wrong on that account. If the theater knowingly allowed an armed gunman on to the property, then they would be negligent. In this case here, they had no known evidence or indication that someone they had let into the theater was planning this. Think about what you are saying. Do not compare this to a wet floor because this is not about negligence on any part of the staff.
Everyone wants to blame someone in a case like this and that’s understandable. No, everyone who slips on a floor DO NOT get paid, they have to show negligence on the part of the owner. Mere slipping is not negligence. Negligence is the failure to act in a manner that a REASONABLY prudent person would. It was not reasonable to expect a theater owner to hire security to prevent the possible conduct of mentally ill or hate filled people. In that case we can expect security EVERYWHERE we go.
-
I feel sorry for these families, but we can’t go making up laws for them.
You are an idiot. Do you want to get strip searched every time you enter a business so the owner can’t be held liable if you have a gun. Moron.
The point is, that the theater allowed a ‘security door’ to be breached. That door was intended to KEEP OUT people who were not there to either pay to watch a movie or work as staff.
That door should not have been accessible to anyone who posed a threat to the security of the people on the premise.
The theater was negligent in securing that door to avoid just such a situation where patrons were harmed.
They could have had that door manned with staff or watched with cameras or at least properly locked …-or brick it up altogether if it such a safety hazard. All doable but not done.
It is common knowledge for any property management to know that there are always undesirables in the general public who may want to sneak in, either to avoid paying a ticket, different forms of theft or to compromise public safety.
If they need that door for a fire escape, it should have been locked to those getting IN without consent.
I don’t expect to have everyone strip-searched to watch a movie because I expect a security door to be SECURED properly.
It was a fire door that locked from the outside. He propped the door open. Your argument is false.
How does that make sense?
How can you escape from a fire if the door is locked from the outside?
How does building management allow for the general public to have access to a fire door so they can prop it open and not alert anyone?
How is the public at large allowed all the time it needs to compromise a fire door, bring in an arsenal of fire-arms, set up with disguise and ammunition, and hang around until just the right time to open fire on a full theater?
How does a building open to the public with the purchase of a ticket, allow a door to be so easily propped open? Does it want to lose revenue to people who don’t pay to get in?
You’d think THAT alone would be worth the price of a minimum wage staffer to check that all the fire doors are properly secure before and during operating hours.
If the building management allowed the doors to be compromised to let anyone off the street to get in, maybe the doors were also a hazard to patrons trying to get out from a fire.
Seriously.
How does a building open to the public, with fire doors, allow even one of those doors to be compromised without being negligent on many levels?
I want to know how this situation was possible without the theater being negligent. If anyone is opening a fire door, building management should be aware of it immediately, even if only to ensure that patrons aren’t trying to escape a fire, let alone get in without paying or compromising patron safety.
Doesn’t that just make chumps out of all of us who’ve been paying admission all these years?
If it’s so common for theaters to have so little control of their fire doors, that they won’t take responsibility for them being compromised, then why don’t we all just get someone to prop open a fire door and let us in without paying.
If a shooter can get in, and do all that and still get into the theater without being caught or stopped, just getting in to take a seat should be a cinch.
I say, if this lawsuit is dismissed, that should be how we all go to see movies from now on.
Wow Marissa (or whoever you are)
You are so obviously fronting for the plaintiffs, or their representation. Theaters will obviously become more vigilant as a result of this tragedy, but this smells of ambulance-chasing. Audiences don’t need another reason to stay home.