In a bid to head off a barrage of lawsuits from victims of last October’s mass shooting on the Las Vegas Strip, MGM Resorts International is suing 1,000 of them in hopes of escaping liability under federal law.
MGM is being sued by thousands of people who claim the company was negligent for not preventing the October 1 massacre, the worst in U.S. history, in which gunman Stephen Paddock, holed up in a suite at MGM’s Mandalay Bay, rained automatic weapons fire on an outdoor music festival, killing 58 people and wounding hundreds.
In complaints filed in federal courts in Nevada and California, MGM claims it’s not liable, citing a 2002 act of Congress that protects any company that uses “anti-terrorism” technology or services that can “help prevent and respond to mass violence.”
Which is why MGM is suing the victims: to have the cases moved out of state court and into federal jurisdiction.
“We have filed what is known as an action for declaratory relief,” the company explained. “All we are doing, in effect, is asking for a change in venue from state to federal court. We are not asking for money or attorney’s fees. We only want to resolve these cases quickly, fairly and efficiently.”
Specifically, MGM claims the company it hired to provide security for the festival, Contemporary Services Corp., was protected from liability because its services had been certified by the Department of Homeland Security for “protecting against and responding to acts of mass injury and destruction.”
MGM contends this places CSC under the protection of the 2002 law and that this protection extends to MGM as the contractor. Therefore, as its complaints argue, any claims against it “must be dismissed.”
“Plaintiffs have no liability of any kind to defendants,” they state.
The FBI has not called the Las Vegas shooting an act of terrorism because the gunman had no clear motive, and the FBI defines terrorism as an act of terror associated with extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial or environmental nature. On the other hand, the act cited in MGM’s suits was passed just more than a year after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and was written intentionally to afford broad protections. Accordingly, it defines terrorism as any unlawful act inside the United States that causes “mass destruction, injury or other loss.”
“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,” MGM spokeswoman Debra DeShong said in a statement last week. “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.”
Not surprisingly, attorneys for the victims blasted the complaints.
Robert Eglet, who has represented several of them, accused MGM of a “blatant display of judge shopping” that “quite frankly verges on unethical.”
“I’ve never seen a more outrageous thing, where they sue the victims in an effort to find a judge they like. It’s just really sad that they would stoop to this level.”
Attorney Craig Eiland, who represents several victims from Texas, said, “MGM is trying to beat these people to the courthouse and declare that they have no rights.
“The proper venue for this is Nevada State Court, plain and simple, under the law.”
Other lawyers say the move is “unprecedented.”
“As far as I know, this is the very first time the Safety Act has been tested,” Dismas Locaria, a partner at Venable in Washington, D.C. told the National Law Journal. “It’s definitely gotten a lot of people’s attention in my industry. We’re actively watching what happens here. But it’s all new ground, candidly.”
The complaints also sparked an uproar on social media, with Twitter users under the hashtag “BoycottMGM” calling on visitors to Las Vegas to avoid MGM properties.
“MGM Grand please remove me from your players list. I won’t be playing at any MGM casino going forward. Your lawsuit against victims of a mass shooting is disgusting!!” said one.
Eric Rose, a partner at California-based crisis management firm Englander Knabe and Allen, said MGM should have explained its actions before the complaints went public.
“They couldn’t explain the lawsuit in a sound byte, and therefore they are suffering the consequences with bad headlines. It makes it look like they are going after the victims. It is going to hurt their brand.”
