MGM sues victims of Las Vegas shooting

Outrage begins to build as it claims ‘no liability’

“This is the most reprehensible behavior I have ever seen a defendant engage in.”

Robert Eglet plaintiff lawyer

A lawsuit filed by MGM Resorts International, owner of the Las Vegas hotel from which Stephen Paddock fatally shot 58 people and wounded hundreds, is drawing outrage from survivors of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

The suit filed against hundreds of the victims of the rampage Oct. 1 claims the entertainment giant has “no liability of any kind.”

MGM said in a statement the filing was meant to provide a “timely resolution” for shooting victims who sued or will sue in the aftermath of the attack during the Route 91 Harvest Festival. MGM said litigation filed against it “must be dismissed.”

“The unforeseeable events of October 1st affected thousands of people in Las Vegas and throughout North America,” MGM Resorts spokeswoman Debra DeShong said in a statement. “From the day of this tragedy, we have focused on the recovery of those impacted by the despicable act of one evil individual.”

Brian Claypool, a survivor of the rampage who represents 75 survivors and victims’ family members, called MGM’s lawsuit “a stunt” that won’t survive a court challenge.

“I am still in therapy once a week, and this is their way of trying to solve the problem,” he said. “It’s shifting responsibility and minimizing their blatant negligence.”

Robert Eglet, whose firm represents hundreds of people in the case, dismissed MGM’s claim as “outrageous” and accused the company of trying to intimidate victims. Very few of his clients have filed suit and some never will, he said.

“In my 30 years of practice, this is the most reprehensible behavior I have ever seen a defendant engage in,” Eglet said. “They are trying to victimize these people twice.”

MGM’s lawsuit claims the case must be dealt with in federal court under terms of the post-9/11 Safety Act, which provides incentives for development and deployment of anti-terrorism technologies. The company says the security firm it contracted for the concert, CSC, was approved by the Department of Homeland Security, thus released from liability under the act.

Eglet and Claypool said that release does not extend to the hotel.

“The Safety Act doesn’t apply to them, it applies to CSC,” Eglet said. “MGM has nothing to do with CSC.”

Eglet said there was no reason to file the suit since the issue of jurisdiction is already being argued in court. He said MGM is “judge shopping.”

“They are trying to find a judge they like,” he said. “All they have done is cause a tremendous amount of stress, pouring gasoline on the fire.”

Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law in Virginia, said the company may be able to convince a federal judge with its arguments, but that would come at a price.

“Even if MGM is successful, that may not outweigh the adverse publicity for the company that the suit generates,” he told USA TODAY.

Claypool said MGM should spend money on safety consultants, not lawyers developing “desperate arguments” designed to avoid responsibility.

Stephen Paddock killed 58 people from his room on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel, which is owned by MGM Resorts. NICK OZA/ARIZONA REPUBLIC