MGM sues hundreds of Las Vegas victims
The Associated Press
LAS VEGAS — MGM Resorts International has sued hundreds of victims of the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history in a bid to block any potential compensation claims for the gunfire that rained down from its Mandalay Bay casinoin Las Vegas.
The company argues in lawsuits filed Friday in Nevada and California that it has “no liability of any kind” to survivors or families of slain victims under a federal law enacted after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The lawsuits target victims who have sued the company and voluntarily dismissed their claims or have threatened to sue after a gunman shattered the windows of his Mandalay Bay suite and fired on a crowd of thousands gathered below for the Route 91 Harvest country music festival, whose venue also is owned by MGM Resorts.
High-stakes gambler Stephen Paddock killed 58 people and injured more than 850 others last year before killing himself. In the wake of the massacre, more than 2,500 individuals brought, or threatened to bring, lawsuits against MGM, the company said in its Friday complaint. Several lawsuits, including wrongful death complaints, already have been filed against MGM Resorts, Live Nation and a Las Vegas security company. Victims with active lawsuits against MGM don’t face the company’s legal claim.
Paddock shot out the windows of his room on the 32nd floor before attacking the crowd. Investigators found 23 guns in the hotel room, including at least a dozen outfitted with bump stocks, which allows for more rapid fire. An additional 50 pounds of exploding targets and 1,600 rounds of ammunition were found in Paddock’s car left parked in the hotel’s parking lot.
One suit representing hundreds of victims alleges negligence by MGM, saying the hotel had a “duty of reasonable care” to monitor comings and goings of hotel guests.
Incidents noted in the suit include: the shooter’s access to a service elevator, which allowed for the delivery of a cache of weapons to his suite; a delayed response to the shooting of security officer Jesus Campos; and Paddock’s ability to break the window in his suite and barricade the door to delay entry by police.
MGM says the 2002 law — which wipes out liability for any company that adopts “anti-terrorism technology” — limits liabilities when a company or group uses services certified by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and mass attacks occur. The company says it is not liable because its security vendor that was hired to “help prevent and respond to mass violence” at the concert, Contemporary Services Corp., was federally certified at the time of the Oct. 1 shooting.
MGM claims the victims — through actual and threatened lawsuits — have implicated CSC’s services because they involve concert security, including training, emergency response and evacuation.
“If defendants were injured by Paddock’s assault, as they allege, they were inevitably injured both because Paddock fired from his window and because they remained in the line of fire at the concert. Such claims inevitably implicate security at the concert — and may result in loss to CSC,” according to the MGM lawsuits.
The company wants a court to declare that the U.S. law “precludes any finding of liability” against MGM “for any claim for injuries arising out of or related to Paddock’s mass attack.”
Debra DeShong, an MGM spokeswoman, didn’t immediately return a call or an email Tuesday for comment on the suit. CSC’s general counsel, James Service, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Attorney Robert Eglet, who represents victims in a lawsuit pending in federal court in Nevada, decried the casino-operator’s move.
“MGM has done something that in over 30 years of practice is the most outrageous thing I have ever seen,” Mr. Eglet said. “They have sued the families of victims while they’re still grieving over their loved ones.”
Mr. Eglet also said the MGM suit was misfiled in federal court. Since MGM is incorporated in Nevada, suits over the shooting must be heard in state court, and the company’s countersuit amounted to a “blatant display’’ of judge shopping, he told the paper.