MGM Resorts International Sues LV Shooting Victims.

MGM Sues Victims of Las Vegas Shootings

MGM Resorts International claimed in a new lawsuit that it has no liability in any of the injuries or deaths in the October mass shooting in Las Vegas.

The company, which owns Mandalay Bay and the Route 91 Harvest festival venue, argued that its security vendor took all necessary precautions, approved by the Department of Homeland Security, for “protecting against and responding to acts of mass injury and destruction,” according to the suit acquired by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

MGM Resorts has been accused of judge shopping outside of Nevada to hopefully find someone who will consider them not liable for any damages resulting from the October shooting.

This is so sickening. Even if they did follow all protocols to ensure the shooting didn't happen, to actually sue these victims is above and beyond disgusting.

a reply to: Atsbhct

Absolutely disgusting... That's all I got.

a reply to: Atsbhct

HA this is a joke right? MGM resorts has some of the laziest security officers I have ever seen. I would never trust those money hungry Btards to fully protect me.

a reply to: Atsbhct

If people are paying attention, MGM should be losing millions of dollars because:
-- 1. This lawsuit. People need to hit them in the pocketbook by avoiding their hotels, casinos and properties when visiting Vegas and beyond
-- 2. Illegal sports gambling has been shot down. State by state, each is working to legalize gambling making Vegas obselete.

Maybe #2 is why MGM is pulling this egregious move...

Unless MGM was complicit in the crime.

Should they really be responsible/liable?

a reply to: Atsbhct

Your link is not working for me.

MGM should not be held liable for the deaths of those people.

Sounds like a tit for tat.

richardharrislaw.com...

a reply to: neo96

The hotel and concert promoter have massive insurance policies.
I don't believe in suing for loads of money, but their horrendously expensive US medical bills should be fully or partially covered at least.

a reply to: Atsbhct

Well then they should be suing the Paddock estate.

As HE was the one who pulled the trigger.

As much as I feel for the victims and their families. But unless MGM was found negligent in their efforts that day they should not be responsible.

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
As much as I feel for the victims and their families. But unless MGM was found negligent in their efforts that day they should not be responsible.

I would say letting that guy use the service elevators to take over 50 guns to his room was pretty damm negligent

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
As much as I feel for the victims and their families. But unless MGM was found negligent in their efforts that day they should not be responsible.

I would say letting that guy use the service elevators to take over 50 guns to his room was pretty damm negligent

How did they not notice him putting cameras in hallways and breaking his windows!?

originally posted by: Atsbhct

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
As much as I feel for the victims and their families. But unless MGM was found negligent in their efforts that day they should not be responsible.

I would say letting that guy use the service elevators to take over 50 guns to his room was pretty damm negligent

How did they not notice him putting cameras in hallways and breaking his windows!?

They were negligent

a reply to: Atsbhct

What are they suing for?

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: Atsbhct

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
As much as I feel for the victims and their families. But unless MGM was found negligent in their efforts that day they should not be responsible.

I would say letting that guy use the service elevators to take over 50 guns to his room was pretty damm negligent

How did they not notice him putting cameras in hallways and breaking his windows!?

They were negligent

Exactly

a reply to: muzzleflash

The hotel is suing the victims to deny liability.

There's a little more (better) information here: MGM files federal complaint over 1 October shooting

And a pdf of the actual complaint filed is here.

MGM/Mandalay Bay is not suing the victims for damages; and they aren't exactly judge "shopping," but are saying that it should be litigated in a federal court according to federal laws, as opposed to a state civil court:

Congress provided that the Federal Courts were the correct place for such litigation relating to incidents of mass violence like this one where security services approved by the Department of Homeland Security were provided. The Federal Court is an appropriate venue for these cases and provides those affected with the opportunity for a timely resolution. Years of drawn out litigation and hearings are not in the best interest of victims, the community and those still healing.”

And, in accordance with those laws, asking for "relief" from the victims, meaning that the victims cannot hold MGM/Mandalay Bay liable.

In it, the company files for relief from nearly 250 people who have filed lawsuits against the company related to the 1 October mass shooting.

Attorneys ask the court for a declaration that says, among other things, that "the Safety Act precludes any finding of liability against plaintiffs for any claim for injuries arising out of or related to Paddock's mass attack" and that the "plaintiffs have no liability of any kind to defendants."

I have not read the complaint, but it would seem that MGM/Mandalay Bay is saying, "Hey -- we did everything the feds told us we had to do; so we have no civil liability."

Unfortunately, I cannot find anything that explains how shifting this case to federal courts would work, or how the victims should be compensated in accordance with the Safety Act -- or even if such compensation is covered.

a reply to: Boadicea

Thanks for this extra info!

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
As much as I feel for the victims and their families. But unless MGM was found negligent in their efforts that day they should not be responsible.

I would say letting that guy use the service elevators to take over 50 guns to his room was pretty damm negligent

Does the hotel have a legal right to search someone's luggage?
I have been to a lot of hotels and have never been searched or been thru a metal detector.

a reply to: Atsbhct

You're welcome! I hate articles that leave me with more questions than answers. And we still don't have enough answers. If MGM isn't civilly liable, is anyone? I would think the security company would benefit under the same law as MGM. I'm not liking the thought that the federal Safety Act would relieve MGM etc of any liability but not also provide any relief for the victims....