Wait! YOU are suing ME?

In October, 2017, a mass killing occurred in Las Vegas, as a maniacal guest, Stephan Paddock, at the Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino opened fire from a 32nd floor suite, raining bullets on a nearby crowd of concert goers. 58 were killed and about 500 were wounded.

Lawsuits were filed in some cases, with many other suits planned in others. The possible financial exposure to MGM Resorts International, owners of Mandalay Bay is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Unexpectedly, in mid 2018, MGM brought suit in Federal Court in Las Vegas against over 1000 persons who have either filed suit or are potential plaintiffs. This suit, called a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, does not seek monetary damages, against the class of plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs, but seeks a court ruling in MGM’s favor declaring that MGM has no liability in this tragic, bloody event.

MGM’s strategy is to invoke a federal law, enacted in 2002, entitled the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies or Safety Act, which purportedly limits liabilities and therefore claims for death, injuries and damages against MGM. As the MGM Complaint in Declaratory Judgment states:

In the case of Paddock’s mass attack, certified technologies or services were deployed by a professional security company, Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC), which was employed as the Security Vendor for the Route 91 concert. As alleged in more detail below, Paddock’s mass attack meets the requirements of the SAFETY Act as set forth in the statute and the Regulations promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security. MGM contends that this attack was a “mass attack” under the law, which law was designed to apply to terrorism.

As CSC was in fact certified as a security agency, for the concert where concertgoers were killed and wounded, MGM requests that all suits be transferred to or initiated in Federal Court and not in any state court. Also, MGM contends that the law limits liability claims only to the security agency and not the company that hires the security agency.

MGM is asking the Federal Court, then, that all claims against MGM be filed in Federal Court and then dismissed as barred by the Anti-Terrorism Act, which if granted, would free MGM from any legal responsibility for the slaughter.
The litigation is continuing and mediation sessions have been scheduled. Mediation is court supervised settlement discussions. You will be kept abreast of developments.

The impact of the family of a deceased loved one, or a person who has been injured as a result of this shooting cannot be comprehended, as these people are now defendants in a suit by the huge, faceless, wealthy corporation that may well have been a cause of this carnage.

Allan Opsitnick