MGM Loses Bid to Coordinate Las Vegas Shooting Lawsuits
The cases include nine lawsuits MGM filed against 2,000 victims of the shooting.
October 04, 2018 at 03:34 PM
5 minute read
|
MGM lost its bid to send lawsuits over last year's mass shooting in Las Vegas to a single federal judge.
In an order on Wednesday, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation refused to coordinate four lawsuits filed against MGM over the shooting and nine cases that MGM filed against the victims seeking declaratory relief that it wasn't liable for injuries or deaths. MGM's lawsuits struck an immediate backlash, both on social media for targeting the shooting's victims and from plaintiffs lawyers who accused the company of forum shopping.
The panel also noted that, although MGM predicted as many as 22,000 victims could sue, there are just three federal lawsuits in California and one in Nevada.
“There also is significant overlap among counsel in these actions,” wrote MDL Panel Chairwoman Sarah Vance in the order. “At this point, voluntary cooperation and coordination among the small number of parties and involved courts appears feasible. We encourage the parties to employ various alternatives to transfer which may minimize the potential for duplicative discovery and inconsistent pretrial rulings in this litigation.”
Additionally, the panel said the plaintiffs planned to pursue their cases in Nevada state court, rendering any MDL moot.
Plaintiffs lawyers Robert Eglet of Las Vegas-based Eglet Prince, who argued against an MDL at last week's oral arguments in San Francisco, noted that the panel took just three days to make its decision.
“That's a very significant message being sent to MGM and their lawyers that this attempt at forming an MDL was a rouse and a fraud, and the court saw right through it, and that's why they denied their motion,” he said.
MGM spokesman Brian Ahern wrote in an email: “We respect the panel's decision and will continue to litigate our motions in the courts where the actions are pending.”
A representative for concert promoter Live Nation, which joined MGM's coordination motion, did not respond to a request for comment.
On Oct. 1, 2017, Stephen Paddock was a guest on the 32nd floor of the MGM's Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino hotel, where he stockpiled an arsenal of weapons used to fire at concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest Festival. He killed 58 people and injured hundreds.
In addition to the cases before the MDL panel, other lawsuits are pending in state courts, primarily in Nevada. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, along with Eglet, also filed a class action against bump stock manufacturer Slide Fire Solutions. Slide Fire makes devices that Paddock used to convert his rifles into fully automatic weapons. On Sept. 17, Nevada Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro granted Slide Fire's dismissal of that case, concluding that it sold a “component part,” and not just an “accessory,” as defined under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields firearm manufacturers from liability.
“We're evaluating what we're going to do,” Eglet said. “We're going to file an amended complaint, but we're also considering an appeal of the court's order.”
In July, MGM's lawyers, Brad Brian and Michael Doyen of Munger, Tolles & Olson in Los Angeles, filed its suits in Nevada, California, Texas, New York, Florida, Arizona, Utah and Alaska. The suits are declaratory actions against 1,977 victims who sued or threatened to sue MGM for failing to provide security that would have prevented the shooting.
In what many experts called a novel move, MGM cited the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002, or SAFETY Act, passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to encourage development of security technologies certified by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
MGM insisted that the SAFETY Act warranted coordinating all the cases in federal court.
The MDL panel said that wasn't enough.
“The declaratory judgment actions do not, on their own, present sufficiently numerous or complex common questions of fact to merit centralization,” Vance wrote.
On Wednesday, the MDL panel granted transfer requests in other cases, including:
- 140 lawsuits that Denmark's taxing authority, the Customs and Tax Administration of the Kingdom of Denmark, or SKAT, filed against various pension funds to recoup $2.1 billion in an alleged tax fraud scheme. The panel sent the cases to U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in the Southern District of New York. Kaplan, who was SKAT's top pick, is one of seven judges on the MDL panel. The order says he took no part in the decision.
- 28 lawsuits brought over alleged defects in Zimmer M/L Taper hip implants. The panel sent the cases to U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty in the Southern District of New York, who is presiding over one of the first cases. The panel noted that the “representations made by counsel at oral argument left us with considerable doubt concerning the parties' cooperative efforts to date.”
- A dozen price-fixing lawsuits filed against various makers of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate and toluene diisocyanate, including Bayer Corp. and The Dow Chemical Co. Both are compounds used in polyurethane products such as mattresses, insulation, clothing and paint. The panel sent those cases to U.S. District Judge Donetta Ambrose in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
- 17 lawsuits filed by personal injury law firms and other businesses alleging Tribune Media Company, Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. and major broadcasters conspired to fix prices for TV advertising. The panel sent those cases to U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall in the Northern District of Illinois.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Approves 23andMe's $30M Data Breach Settlement - With Conditions
5 minute readOn Governor's Desk: NY 'Death Gamble' Bill That Seeks to Correct Pension Anomaly for Judges
'Serious Misconduct' From Monsanto Lawyer Prompts Mistrial in Chicago Roundup Case
3 minute readCleary vs. White & Case: NY Showdown Over $5 Billion Brazilian Bankruptcy
Trending Stories
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250