Axelrod v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 13–cv–01995–RBJ–MEH,Civil Action No. 12–cv–02514–RBJ–MEH, Civil Action No. 12–cv–02687–RBJ–MEH, Civil Action No. 14–cv–01923–RBJ–MEH, Civil Action No. 13–cv–03316–RBJ–MEH, Civil Action No. 13–cv–00114–RBJ–MEH, Civil Action No. 14–cv–01976–RBJ–MEH, Civil Action No. 13–cv–02060–RBJ–MEH, Civil Action No. 13–cv–00045–RBJ–MEH, Civil Action No. 12–cv–02517–RBJ–MEH, Civil Action No. 12–cv–02705–RBJ–MEH, Civil Action No. 13–cv–02239–RBJ–MEH, Civil Action No. 13–cv–00046–RBJ–MEH, Civil Action No. 13–cv–02988–RBJ–MEH, Civil Action No. 13–cv–01842–RBJ–MEH, Civil Action No. 12–cv–02900–RBJ–MEH, Civil Action No. 13–cv–02992–RBJ–MEH, Civil Action No. 14–cv–01729–RBJ–MEH, Civil Action No. 14–cv–01986–RBJ–MEH, Civil Action No. 12–cv–02704–RBJ–MEH |
| Citation | 65 F.Supp.3d 1093 |
| Parties | Denise N. Axelrod (f/k/a Denise Traynom), and Brandon K. Axelrod, Plaintiffs, v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., Cinemark USA, Inc., and Century Theaters, Inc., Defendants. Joshua R. Nowlan, Plaintiffs, v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., Cinemark USA, Inc., and Century Theaters, Inc., Defendants. Dion Rosborough, Ryan Lumba, Tony Briscoe, Jon Boik, next friend of Alexander Boik, Louis Duran, Shirley Clark, Mary Theresa Hoover, Evan Faris, and Richele Hill, Plaintiffs, v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., Cinemark USA, Inc., and Century Theaters, Inc., Defendants. Jerri Jackson, Plaintiff, v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., Cinemark USA, Inc., and Century Theaters, Inc., Defendants. Gregory Medek, and Rena Medek, Plaintiffs, v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., Cinemark USA, Inc., and Century Theaters, Inc., Defendants. Ian Sullivan, Plaintiffs, v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., Cinemark USA, Inc., and Century Theaters, Inc., Defendants. Chichi Spruel and Derick Spruel, Plaintiffs, v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., Cinemark USA, Inc., and Century Theaters, Inc., Defendants. Munirih F. Gravelly, Plaintiff, v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., Cinemark USA, Inc., and Century Theaters, Inc., Defendants. Lynn Johnson, Machael Sweeney, Malik Sweeney by and through his parents and next friends of Machael Sweeney and Lynn Johnson, Malachi Sweeney, and Machi Sweeney, Plaintiffs, v. Century Theaters, Inc., Defendant. Zackary Golditch, Plaintiff, v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., Cinemark USA, Inc., and Century Theaters, Inc., Defendants. Ashley Moser, Plaintiff, v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., Cinemark USA, Inc., and Century Theaters, Inc., Defendants. Jarell N. Brooks, Plaintiff, v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., Cinemark USA, Inc., and Century Theaters, Inc., Defendants. Kathleen Larimer, and Scott Larimer Plaintiffs, v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., Cinemark USA, Inc., and Century Theaters, Inc., Defendants. Nick Gallup, Plaintiff, v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., Cinemark USA, Inc., and Century Theaters, Inc., Defendants. Brooke Cowden, Kristian Cowden, and Weston Cowden, Plaintiffs, v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., Cinemark USA, Inc., and Century Theaters, Inc., Defendants. Stefan Moton, Plaintiff, v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., Cinemark USA, Inc., and Century Theaters, Inc., Defendants. Alleen Young, Plaintiff, v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., Cinemark USA, Inc., and Century Theaters, Inc., Defendants. Chantel L. Blunk, Maximus T. Blunk, and Hailey M. Blunk, Plaintiffs, v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., Cinemark USA, Inc., and Century Theaters, Inc., Defendants. Jamison Toews, Plaintiff, v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., Cinemark USA, Inc., and Century Theaters, Inc., Defendants. Marcus Weaver, Plaintiff, v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., Cinemark USA, Inc., and Century Theaters, Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
Christina M. Habas, Michael O'Brien Keating, William Lawrence Keating, Deirdre Elizabeth Ostrowski, Keating Wagner Polidori & Free, P.C., Andrew David Silverman, Richard S. Strauss, Hochstadt, Straw, Strauss & Silverman, P.C., Michael George Sawaya, Robert Dean Wilhite, III, Sandra Lynn Hagen, Sawaya & Miller Law Firm, Denver, CO, for Plaintiffs.
Amanda W. Wiley, John Michael Roche, Kevin Scott Taylor, Kyle Paul Seedorf, Taylor Anderson, LLP, Denver, CO, for Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
These cases, which have been consolidated for purposes of discovery and motions practice,1 are before the Court on a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants Cinemark Holdings, Cinemark USA, and Century Theaters. The Court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.
These cases arise from the shootings that occurred at the Century Aurora 16 theater complex in Aurora, Colorado on July 20, 2012. James Holmes purchased a ticket for the midnight premiere showing of The Dark Knight Rises and took a seat in Auditorium 9. During the previews he left the auditorium through the exit door to the outside, leaving it propped open with a plastic clip. He went to his car, which he had parked immediately behind the auditorium, donned body armor and a gas mask, and armed himself with a tear gas canister, a shotgun, a rifle, at least one handgun, and extra ammunition. Twenty minutes after the movie started Holmes reentered the auditorium through the exit door, disbursed tear gas, and began randomly shooting patrons. After killing 12 individuals and wounding many others, Holmes returned to his car, again through the exit door, and waited there until he was arrested by police.
The plaintiffs in the present cases are people who were injured and survivors of those who were killed. The lawsuits were initially filed only against Century Theatres, Inc., but based on facts that have been learned during pretrial discovery, all but one of the complaints have been amended to join Cinemark Holdings, Inc. and Cinemark USA, Inc. as additional defendants. Cinemark, USA and Century Theatres, Inc. are wholly owned subsidiaries of Cinemark Holdings, Inc., and I will refer to them collectively as “Cinemark” or “defendants.”
Plaintiffs' contention is that the injuries and deaths could have been prevented had the defendants taken reasonable steps to provide security for the theater on that evening. Defendants' response is that the shootings, which were carefully planned and carried out, were so unprecedented as to be legally unforeseeable. The ultimate question posed by the pending motion is whether the dispute should be dismissed by the Court as a matter of law or should be resolved by a jury trial.
This is not the first time in the case that this question has been presented to me. Early on the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case on the legal ground that the complaints failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. On April 17, 2013 the Court, agreeing with a recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty, denied that motion. At that stage of the case the Court was required to accept the plaintiffs' allegations of fact as true, and having done so, I determined that the plaintiffs had alleged enough to avoid immediate dismissal. Since that time the parties, primarily the plaintiffs, have conducted extensive pre-trial discovery in an effort to develop more information about what the defendants knew about security risks and when they knew it. The defendants contend that the plaintiffs did not uncover any facts that create enough of a dispute that a trial is required and now seek summary judgment dismissing the case.
The purpose of a trial, whether by the court or a jury, is to resolve disputed issues of fact. Summary judgment simply means that the Court can decide the case, for either party, if there is no genuine dispute of fact that needs to be resolved at a trial. “Summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Found. for Apologetic Info. & Research, 527 F.3d 1045, 1050 (10th Cir.2008) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ).
When deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court considers “the factual record, together with all reasonable inferences derived therefrom, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party....” Id. The moving party has the burden of producing evidence showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In challenging such a showing, the non-movant “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”Id.
In denying the defendants' motion to dismiss, this Court held that Cinemark's liability, if any, would be determined under Colorado's Premises Liability Act. This statute sets the standard for the possible liability of a “landowner” when someone is injured on his property “by reason of the condition of such property, or activities conducted or circumstances existing on the property.” C.R.S. § 13–21–115(2). Courts determine, as a matter of law, whether the injured person was a trespasser, a licensee, or an invitee. Patrons of a movie theater are indisputably invitees. At least one of the defendant entities is a landowner, and for present purposes I assume that Cinemark collectively is a landowner. “[A]n invitee may recover for damages caused by a landowner's unreasonable failure to exercise reasonable care to protect against dangers of which he actually knew or should have known .” C.R.S. § 13–21–115(3)(c)(I) (emphasis added).
Although the briefing of the motion for summary judgment has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rishor v. Ferguson
... ... ]learly established federal law for the purpose of 2254(d) means holdings of the Supreme Court at the time of the state court decision. 65 ... See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. North Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 89899 (9th Cir.2001). Rule ... ...
-
Wagner v. Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc.
...represented that the public is expected to enter the property. Wycoff , 251 P.3d at 1266-67 ; see also Axelrod v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc. , 65 F.Supp.3d 1093, 1097 (D. Colo. 2014). Another example would be where a sign labeling a sidewalk as a "bicycle path" communicates to the public that ......
-
Mitchell v. Rite Aid of Md.
...in a case arising out of the Aurora movie theater shootings. Axelrod v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., 65 F.Supp.3d 1093, 1096 (D. Colo. 2014). In Axelrod, the shooter purchased a ticket for premiere showing of "The Dark Knight Rises," left the auditorium during the previews, propped the theater ......
-
Mitchell v. Rite Aid of Md.
...in a case arising out of the Aurora movie theater shootings. Axelrod v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., 65 F.Supp.3d 1093, 1096 (D. Colo. 2014). In Axelrod, the shooter purchased a ticket for premiere showing of "The Dark Knight Rises," left the auditorium during the previews, propped the theater ......
-
Foreseeing The Unforeseeable- Premises Security Litigation And Mass Casualty Events
...of modern life' as to be unforeseeable in 1984 was not necessarily so unlikely in 2012." Axelrod v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc. et al., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1093, 1099, 2014 US Dist. LEXIS 113625 (D. Co. 2014). "One such relevant fact in the setting of modern life is simply the changed landscape in w......