12 dead, 58 injured in Colorado at midnight showing of Dark Knight

OK, I see what you're saying, though I read it a little differently. The state case involved a different group of survivors that lost their case earlier in the day. The plaintiffs in the federal case were about to lose theirs, and the state ruling bolsters the federal judge's decision, meaning the plaintiffs in the federal suit wouldn't appeal, thus ending their case. It seems the mention of the state case is extraneous and should be removed, rather than bothering to explain why there were state and federal cases.

Either way, it wasn't clearly written.

As far as the attorneys fees go, I thought this sentence was plenty of explanation:

I don't really need anymore than that. Colorado law allows for it. The legal background of how that law came into being is irrelevant to the story (unless this is the first case under a new law that allows for the prevailing party to collect legal fees).

And, yeah, I'd probably just remove the magistrate part. It's not explained very well.

I guess I pretty much agree with you on two of your three points, but I'd rather see the story cut shorter than bogged down further.

 

It's just that sticking losing plaintiffs with legal bills is so unusual, I think why it happened beyond an explanation of "it's Colorado law" (well, no shit. What is the law?) is needed. It is what the story is about, victims of a senseless shooting get stuck having to pay a big company's $700,000 legal bill. Why? It is what I would care about when I start to think about suing somebody in Colorado. Is it an exception? The default rule? What?

The whole part about the New York lawyer could have been cut for a clearer explanation of the bills.

 

In states that have enacted "losers pay" laws does the loser pay only in cases where it is determined the suit did not have merit or in all cases? I can see why Cinemark won the Colorado liability case and the suit probably did not have much legal merit. But would a defendant have to pay in a case where the facts made it a close call?

If so that means a middle class person can not sue a large corporation. If the middle class person loses for whatever reason they have to pay 700K in legal defenses and probably lose their home. If a large corporation loses they will not lose everything. So a corporation can rationally adapt the policy of never settling and scare most plaintiff's off.

 

Costs are not the same as attorneys' fees. Costs refers to very minimal fees related to witnesses and such.

 

There is a statute that provides for fees in cases that are found to be "substantially frivolous, substantially groundless, or substantially vexatious." Easy to put that in the article. It starts with 13-17-101.

http://tornado.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/2013TitlePrintouts/CRS Title 13 (2013).pdf

It explains why only four plaintiffs were hit with costs as the others abandoned the case once the state jury decision came down and after that the judge ruled the federal case became frivolous. I have a few other questions, but will figure them out myself.

 

Another thing the paper screwed up. The headline asks why 4 people have to pay $700K in legal fees, but the $700,000 figure is from the state case and there were 4 plaintiffs left in the federal case and 27 in the state case. The writer states that the "costs in the federal case are expected to be far more."