65 F. Supp. 3d 1093
D. Colo.2014Background
- Consolidated cases arise from the July 20, 2012 Aurora theater shooting at Century Aurora 16; Holmes opened fire inside Auditorium 9.
- Plaintiffs are injured patrons and survivors; suits initially named Century, later joined Cinemark entities as defendants.
- Plaintiffs contend Cinemark failed to take reasonable security steps to prevent the attack.
- Cinemark argues the shooting was unprecedented and unforeseeable, thus not liable as a matter of law.
- Court previously denied the motion to dismiss; this is a summary judgment challenge based on discovery.
- The dispute centers on whether Cinemark knew or should have known of the danger to patrons and whether that question can be resolved as a matter of law or must go to a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact about Cinemark's knowledge of the danger | Cinemark knew or should have known of the danger to patrons | The danger was unforeseeable as a matter of law | No; the question is fact-bound and a jury must decide |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment standard requires absence of genuine issue of material fact)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (mere speculation not enough to defeat summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (genuine dispute requires evidence that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmovant)
- Vigil v. Franklin, 103 P.3d 322 (Colo. 2004) (ultimate liability questions for invitee injuries are for jury; duty involves knowledge of danger)
- Lopez v. McDonald’s Corp., 193 Cal.App.3d 495 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (foreseeability limited to what is reasonably foreseeable; unprecedented harm can limit duty)