The comments yesterday has some nice discussion about the lawsuit against SlideFire, the manufacturer of the bump stock used in the shooting. Here are more details. [TNI]
A 21-year old college student is the first victim to sue MGM. [KTNV]
Attorney Kenneth Feinberg will oversee distribution of the victims’ fund. [Las Vegas Sun]
Zappos and others are still raising funds to help the victims. [Las Vegas Sun]
The Golden Knights won their home opener last night after an emotional tribute to the victims. [Las Vegas Sun; News3LV]
All mostly good things, way to go this morning law world.
Guest
Anonymous
October 11, 2017 4:33 pm
Pleased to hear the suit against MB will be filed soon. It will be an interesting read. I think each day the information coming out is good for the Plaintiff's case. Has anybody heard any additional details about this whackjob using the freight elevator? How did he access and so on…
I have not heard any facts yet which would create a good case for Plaintiffs as against MGM/MB. He used a freight elevator to have multiple bags taken to his room? I have done trade shows where we had displays and boxes sent to a hospitality suite. Know how they got up there? The Bellhop took the service elevator.
"'It's because this individual purposely hid his actions leading up to this event, and it is difficult for us to find the answers to those actions,' Lombardo said. 'We believe he decided to take the lives he did and he had a very purposeful plan that he carried out.' . . . .Police and FBI agents, including behavioral profilers, still haven't found a particular event in Paddock's life that might have triggered the shooting."
The events are terribly tragic. But if the greatest criminal profilers in the world cannot find any clues after the fact, how in the world was MGM supposed to have foreseen this before the fact?
9:33 here: Points well taken – thank you for your insight. I understood he used the freight elevator rather than the bellhop. That he bolted the stairwell door shut and installed cameras outside his room coupled with the security guard getting shot 6 minutes before he started shooting out the windows are a few things I thought may be helpful for Plaintiffs in an uphill battle.
Don't forget the $ factor in these lawsuits on all sides. MB doesn't want to be seen as bullying victims. A quick settlement is probably their best option. Also, what elected judge is going to throw this out without a trial? You are going to have evidence adduced that casinos (including MB) tell their workers to look the other way when guests act weird). P is going to argue they might have noticed something odd about this guy if they hadn't been purposely looking the other way because of his patronage. That could get you to a jury, and a jury is going to hammer a casino that looked the other way on weird behavior because they guy was funding the casino with his losses.
Guest
Anonymous
October 11, 2017 4:42 pm
I am so stoked that the Golden Knights are 3-0, and there was something special about last night's win, more so than just being the first time in NHL history an expansion team went 3-0 or we won our first home game, just the overall game was great and we gave an established franchise a shallacking. I know people said they don't have a chance of making playoffs, but I still hoping they make playoffs, even as a low seed.
Guest
Anonymous
October 11, 2017 4:54 pm
I'm thinking the lawsuit will revolve around the security guard who was shot outside the room minutes before the attack started yet it took police an hour to figure out where the shots were coming from. Possible communication failure between MB and Metro.
The police have said that the reason it took a while to get to the shooter's room was because, at the time, he wasn't an active shooter. i.e. bullets weren't flying for an hour straight. They went from room to room on the 32d floor, getting folks out. MGM has said the police's current timeline (guard shot first) is incorrect
Funny, I was thinking the bolting of the emergency stairwell was a bigger achille's heel for MB. At least with that, they could have placed alarms on it that notified security dispatch when the door was opened or had excessive vibrations. Also, they should have a security camera monitoring that door which would have shown his actions in barricading it.
12:36, I was thinking the same. No cameras in hall, but what about stairwell, I can't imagine they would not have cameras. Also, I'm curious about what room service may have seen, if anything.
Guest
Anonymous
October 11, 2017 5:10 pm
The 66% bar passage rate is higher than it's been, but is still relatively low. When I sat for the exam, long before there was Boyd Law School, the passage rate was in the high 70's. Had it not been, I'd now be in some other line of work. I'd be a highly depressed middle-aged man saying "would you like fries with your order, Mam?"
Guest
Anonymous
October 11, 2017 5:13 pm
Golden Knight's game was awesome. The Team did a great job opening the arena for NHL in the wake of the tragedy. There were no advertisements on the boards only #VegasStrong.
One of the Zamboni Ice Trucks had Adam Kutner plastered to the side. Kind of douchey in my opinion (don't sue me) to be the only advertiser. I hope he made a huuuuuuuuuuuge donation to the victim fund to justify being the only advertiser.
Toyota was advertised on the other Zamboni. Bernstein had an ad before the game and got a plug each time the Knights were playing shorthanded. There were several other ads, but I agree, very classy of the Knights to remove ads from around the ice. They did a fantastic job of honoring both the victims and offering our City's gratitude to the First Responders. The win was a wonderful bonus.
What really bothers me is there NV Energy power play. NV Energy has exactly zero competitors. Every single person in Southern Nevada has to use them for their power company. So who exactly are they advertising to and how much are we collectively paying for that power play sponsorship via higher energy rates? Soon they'll be asking the legislature for a rate increase to pay for this.
Guest
Anonymous
October 11, 2017 6:16 pm
If anybody is interested, here is the info and in Israel's court. A-17-762858-C | Paige Gasper, Plaintiff(s) vs. MGM Resorts International, Defendant(s)
Guest
Anonymous
October 11, 2017 6:41 pm
I survived the shooting, I am a civil litigator, and I am for gun control, so I feel qualified to speak on the issue. I am disgusted and sick over these lawsuits being filed. I'm not surprised by the firms who filed and the angles they are working, and I knew it would be coming sooner rather than later because someone had to be first to cash in on this tragedy, but it still really disappoints me. Nobody could've prevented what happened. I cannot say enough positive things about Metro, MGM Resorts, and all other first responders. The only person I blame is the shooter. All weekend I felt extremely safe at the concert. All my friends and family who were there would never even consider litigation at this point. This is why people hate us lawyers. In a time where we're looking for positivity and healing, someone files a Complaint one week after the incident.
Hey 11:41: Glad you are OK. There is nothing in what you said that reads like ID. If someone wants to be the first to sue Paddock and his Estate to freeze the assets, go for it. I think it will be a lost cause, but go for it. But I read the Complaint. Borders on Rule 11 against some of the Defendants.
Hey 12:23– unless you were also at the concert, you know…. this Blog is supposed to be kinder so I will keep the editorial content to myself.
11:41 – I'm glad you made it out with your life. I hope everyone you were there with is safe too. I completely agree with you. This is the kind of stuff that infuriates the public against lawyers and fuels "tort reform" to the detriment of legitimate plaintiffs and claims. Both politicians and ambulance chasers have been just shameless in their self promotion and angling. Just disgusting.
Or, you know, there's the possibility that Mandalay and the concert festival really didn't do everything they needed to, and the claims are legitimate. Maybe the timing is in poor taste, and little premature and clearly a PR stunt, but that doesn't mean there might be some legitimacy to the claims.
I agree with 1:16. A tragedy like this will always draw opportunists and bad-taste advertising. By all means go after the bump-stock people and whatever assets the shooter might have. As to MB, I think it is simply too soon to say based on the timeline of the guard being shot, based on this guy living in the hotel for almost a week and whether anything fishy should have been noticed, based on whatever past history they may have had with him, etc. I need to know more facts.
I agree with 1:10 that the timing of the sudden lawsuits is somewhat distasteful and opportunistic(considering they had a long time before the statute of limitations and could have waited, at least for another few weeks.) But I also agree with 1;16 that, although the efforts of all involved in responding to the tragedy appears impressive, it is reasonably possible certain safety concerns may eventually be uncovered.
It's always been obvious to me, and a concern, that it would be relatively easy for a hotel guest to engage in a large scale shooting, or some other act of extreme violence, based on the fact most of the hotels don't have metal detectors, and other obvious security technology outside of surveillance cameras. They probably believe it would slow things down, and encourage guests to go to other hotels where they don't have to deal with it. Such detectors are hardly infallible, and there are ways to smuggle weapons into compromised entry areas of buildings that do use detectors. But it's quite probable someone would not have smuggled 32 firearms and other accessories, into a building that had such equipment. But sine it is not a requirement, and I'm not aware of any hotels or casinos that in fact use detectors, this cannot be a ground for liability. But perhaps there will be a movement for such installation to be mandated, although I've heard no talk of it. We need to be processed through metal detectors when entering any official or government building, but it is not a feature of casinos.
That all said, as 11:16 indicates, some security, or other short comings, may eventually be uncovered.
However, what I found concerning is the press statements made by the attorneys who filed the law suits. They were not about to admit the truth, that filing first brings attention to them, gets them ink in the paper,and that they hope to secure a big pay day, enhance their reputation in their field, etc. And I certainly was not foolish enough to expect them to concede all that. But I felt they insulted our intelligence when the statements seemed to indicate that the attorneys' primary goal in all this is to serve the public and be at the forefront of effectuating safety remedies. Yeah, right.
So, to effectuate safety remedies is what they are seeking? I think that we all know that is not true. These Nevada attorneys have been here their whole lives, or at least working lives, and not once thought of any need to increase "security" at the casinos prior to this event. Is the proper safety standard going to have to be that we will all have to go through metal detectors in all buildings or locations where people congregate? BS.
3:05 – you said exactly what I was thinking. Are casinos supposed to be run like airports and have TSA violate the visitors? Why not go after the gun makers? Oh yeah…
Let's blame the casino and create a massive security screening process that burdens everyone. Meanwhile, let's also immunize the gun industry and refuse to enact/enforce sensible firearm restrictions so a few red-blooded Americans can collect an arsenal. That's the price of freedom (according to Bill O'Reilly)!
Just thinking off the cuff, but what about the lack of exits or lack of direction when the shooting started? There were 2 exits, so 20,000 people were caged like animals. Let's say it was a fire, not a shooting, then significant death would have occurred. To say there is no possible basis for suit is a little much. Was the suit filed to quickly for publicity- absolutely, but that does not mean MGM was not negligent. I am a criminal defense guy. Just FYI.
Guest
Anonymous
October 11, 2017 6:46 pm
The NSC is just not very efficient at releasing opinions.
What are you talking about? They managed to release 6 Advance Opinions and 4 Unpublished Decisions (not including Orders Dismissing signed by the Clerk) in the last 7 days. That is HUGE output for this Court of lazy jurists. Sure there are no Forthcoming Opinions today according to the Clerk, but they are winded from turning out almost 2 orders per Justice in the last week.
Guest
Anonymous
October 11, 2017 10:21 pm
This whole debate about whether or not the NSC issues enough decisions within a certain rate of time, totally ignores the issue of quality vs. quantity, and seems to extol from over substance.
That said, I totally agree that no one benefits if cases are unduly languishing. But keep in mind that such court will continue performing its job as it deems appropriate, and will not succumb to sporadic, anonymous internet remarks from attorneys who believe they should issue decisions more rapidly. They can be expected to advance the view that, considering the (supposedly)crushing work load, that the decisions are ready when they are ready, and it is important to take a bit longer to get it right.
If a cake needs to bake a certain amount of time, but a hungry person clamors for the cake to be removed from the oven earlier, it will be inedible.
For that reason, if they ever did accelerate decision making as a result of sporadic attorney pressure(which they will not), a rushed decision does not equate to a better decision.
So, they will continue as is, regardless of occasional criticism, and will continue to reference that the COA helps with the back log, and helps to accelerate matters.
We also need to keep in mind that there are certain matters which no appellate system can timely deal with. Although most appellate systems competently and timely deal with emergency criminal matters such as pending executions and the like, and can adequately deal with emergency injunctive civil relief, there is no appellate system that can adequately deal with many of the Family Law issues.
These matters are so ever changing and dynamic, that there are critical changes on a monthly, weekly, and even daily basis. Some financial issues are worthy of appeal, but many custodial issues are not. Attorneys should do a better job of explaining to people that in certain cases, whether they win or lose their appeal two or three years down the road, it may ultimately not matter. If an appeal is processed when a child is 7, the circumstances will have dramatically changed, in all facets of the parents' lives and child's life, by the time the child is 10 and an appellate decision is finally issued.
If a baker says he's got so many orders that it will take 3 hours before he can begin on yours, but if only he had more manpower, he could start your in 1, he'd damn well better deliver when more manpower is given. The CoA was sold on the basis that more published opinions could be issued if only they had a few more hands to shoulder the workload. They got 3 more justices. They're producing the same amount of work they were before, if not less. These bakers outta be shit-canned.
The decision to keep taking unduly long because they can is precisely the problem. They promised us the CoA would shorten the waits; it has not. They promised us timely decisions. They have no delivered. Decisions are not cakes. They are charged with providing quality decisions in the time that justice requires. They chose a job in which rendering timely decisions is necessary. If they are incapable of doing that, then they should individually or collectively step aside.
If your baker is charged with delivering your Wedding Cake on Saturday, but delivers it on Thanksgiving but with the assurance that the cake is actually edible, that is a bad baker.
Actually, when we cut through all the colorful language and culinary metaphors and analogies(cake baking, etc.), 3:21 appears to totally agree with y'all, albeit was attempting to be somewhat careful, diplomatic, and circumspect.
But, ultimately, 3:21 shows his/her hand, and what they really think, when they (perhaps inadvertently slip up) and say that the NSC, regardless of how many attorneys may feel, will continue to issue decisions at the rate they deem appropriate. So, ultimately, it does not appear that 3:21 is a NSC apologist.
Perhaps. But where 3:21 appears to differ is in the analysis that the Court will continue doing whatever it wishes unchecked because there is nothing that a bunch of attorneys can do about it. Quite to the contrary, the voters of this state were sold a bill of goods by this very court (minus Stiglich) that this Court realized that cases were taking too long because its workload was supposedly too great but if only provided with a CoA all could be remedied. The Justices (especially Hardesty) lied. The Court is not immune to the slings and arrows of the public it serves. The excuse "Well that is just how it is done" rings hollow when there is no reason that that is the way that things are done.
But if 3:21 believes the NSC will proceed however they please, without fear of meaningful accountability, they are correct.
They in no way, shape or form fear the attorneys, and they know that because of the huge power and status they wield that it would be a rare attorney who would publicly criticize them and support an opponent who decides to run against one of them.
There are exceptions, but they are few, far between, and almost steeped with antiquity. The most relatively recent meaningful exception is itself over a decade ago–when Justice Saitta defeated sitting Justice Becker. If memory serves,Justice Saitta and her family were pretty well-heeled financially, and she collected a lot of funds from non-attorneys. But, obviously, some of her funds must have been raised from attorneys.
But that election was a somewhat unique outlier and was more than 10 years ago. Even attorneys who I know to be NSC critics behind the scenes, are quite fawning and obsequious to the Justices when conversing with them at various judicial events.
So, no, the justices do not fear reprisals from the attorneys, IMO. And they usually are unopposed in re-election, or they draw token opposition from gadfly perennial candidate types.
Since that is the general reality of these dynamics, why the Hell would they ever fear us or adjust how they process cases based on what we may think?
And no published opinions in more than a year. And, their orders can't even be cited.
Guest
Anonymous
October 11, 2017 10:34 pm
The quality of some of the recent decisions is definitely up.
Guest
Anonymous
October 11, 2017 11:14 pm
I was no huge fan of Kephart as a prosecutor, so I can't believe I am taking up for him. Never thought I'd see the day.
However, even if he were my worst enemy of all time, a public reprimand is too severe and disproportionate(although he did stipulate to it). At worst, it should have been a private reprimand or some sort of cautionary admonishment.
If we look at the Judge Bill Potter matter, we can understand the Commission's concern. After an article was printed which the judge believed made him look insensitive to gay people on the eve of his re-election, he contacted the paper to offer his side of the story. And boy did he offer his side of the story–all supported by good article placement, dramatic headline, photograph, several quotes from Potter, all involving a highly charged custody matter still pending before him, and all of it disseminated in the daily news paper.
But with the Kephart matter, understanding that since he now sits as a judge he is inviting ethical scrutiny if he opens his mouth about an old case he worked on as a prosecutor where a re-trial will now occur, it is difficult to see the real close nexus or the real likelihood of harm or prejudice. If he were still a prosecutor, the public would expect him to say that he and his fellow prosecutors got it right the first time and that he still thinks the defendant is guilty. The public expects this, and if any of them were ever selected as potential jurors in a re-trial, the few that actually saw the broadcast would hardly expect to be tainted or influenced by the fact that one of the original prosecutors on the case stands by the guilty verdict. And if for some unexpected reason, some prospective juror is actually influenced by the fact that one of the original prosecutors, now happens to be a sitting judge and believes the original decision was correct, such relatively rare prospective juror could be screened with relative ease. Most jurors realize that prosecutors often become judges, and would not be influenced if a prosecutor who now happens to be a judge stands by the guilty verdicts he/she received years ago. I don't believe that the fact one of the former prosecutors is now a judge will realistically cause many jurors to imbue the original verdict with enhanced credibility, merely because the former prosecutor/current judge made a couple brief remarks that he believes the old verdict was appropriate at the time. Unfortunately, the public does not nearly imbue the judiciary with the respect and credibility the Commission may believe they do.
But obviously the Commission believes the possible juror taint is much greater than I do, and apparently Kephart's lawyers would also disagree with my analysis as they , in short order, seemed to readily agree with a public reprimand. Or, it is possible the lawyers would believe views such as mine have some validity, but they did not care to take a chance with the panel that would ultimately decide this.
Possible juror taint. Possible fellow jurist taint. Raises the specter that behind the bench Kephart would advocate for his former position. It is the perception that the system is slanted, that jurists continue to advocate for their former clients/offices once they take the Bench. For example, you are criminal defendant who gets a reversal and your case remanded to Kephart. Why wouldn't you believe that his predisposition is that the earlier conviction should stick?
This was clearly out of bounds. Kephart was not smart/ethical enough to know that it was clearly out of bounds, but Bill Terry was smart enough to tell Kephart.
@ 4:14 You're wrong. Having a sitting judge speak about a defendant/petitioner's guilt or innocence when the case is being heard by a colleague is unethical. That pressures the colleague to rule in a certain way.
To:8:40: 4:14 here again. I accept that I'm wrong, particularly considering the way you phrase the situation.
But the judicial field has changed dramatically. It is not like years ago where there were far fewer of them, there was congeniality, they bounced ideas off each other, etc. At the RJC there are now so many of them, they are so isolated, often without much meaningful contact with their colleagues, and in high profile case there is a barrage of media and internet input and opinions on such case, etc. If one judge of several dozen, who is probably on a different floor,, states in an interview that he thinks the person he prosecuted years ago is guilty, the judge hearing the case is in no way surprised by that, is not interested in that, and will not be swayed by it. Would the judge be swayed if instead of Kephart granting the media interview he was instead mentioning to his staff and friends in the legal profession that he still thinks the person is guilty? Of course not.
I recognize it's still unethical, and recognize that in a much smaller, much closer connected judiciary(such as in smaller towns and cities) the taint could very well be there. But I simply don't think as a practical matter there is a taint.Again, I appreciate it is unethical because of the possibility of a taint, but as a practical matter there is no taint. I doubt any judge assigned to the case cares, or is surprised by, Kephart indicating that someone he succeeded in convicting is in fact guilty in his opinion. It would only be surprising if he said the opposite. They could care less what he said in some interview. I simply don't believe there is one District Judge in this county who would be even remotely influenced by,or would ever rule on a matter based on Kephart's statement that someone he successfully prosecuted years ago is in fact guilty in his opinion.
Now if you want to discuss the taint with potential jurors, that is more complex, interesting, and, granted, far more likely. But even that, IMO, is more remote than many seem to think.
Guest
Anonymous
October 12, 2017 12:22 am
To the firms who have sued the ESTATE of Stephen Paddock less than 10 days after the date of death:
You are f***ing idiots who didn't bother to read any of the probate statutes. If you don't fix this problem, you'll be committing malpractice, bigly. You can't file an A-Case against an Estate 10 days after the date of death, geniuses. But of course, maybe you do know that, and you just don't care because you're going for the free publicity, trying to leverage as much as possible from this tragedy.
To:5:22. These attorneys think that all that is necessary is that they understand injury cases. They probably did not even consider the probate implications. In all likelihood, whether or not they have some experience in generic personal injury case, it may be that they have little or no experience in cases involving death or serious injury causes by security concerns, and/or in successfully suing large casino conglomerates. They probably have little or no experience suing casinos or hotels concerning such matters.
That said, the attorneys may simply believe that they will not concern themselves too much with the hotel/security aspect, but instead pursue Paddock's estate directly because their myopic, simplistic analysis is, well liability is easy to prove because he shot people for no good reason, and he supposedly has millions in assets sitting around because the media quotes his estranged brother as saying he "made millions in real estate."
So, yes, in addition to probably having little or no experience successfully suing huge conglomerates for serious injuries involving supposed security defects, they probably have no experience as to suing deceased people directly based on money that person's estate may have.
And therefore, you are correct that if their approach was to concentrate on Paddock rather than litigation as to the hotel or concert arrangers, they are largely locked out because they apparently know nothing of probate rules.
As one poster pointed out, they are just interested in suing first, getting their name in ink, and hopefully to eventually score a big pay day and be perceived as true players in the local legal field. But, in addition to knowing little or nothing as to how to properly proceed(including your very valid probate points) they are so laughably inept at public relations that they insult the intelligence of everyone in the community, including the people who have very little in the way of intelligence that can be insulted.
Instead of saying some generic remarks about how their client and others were killed or viciously harmed and how there needs to be accountability and compensation, they essentially climb up on a soap box and assert that their motivation , in filing the law suit so soon, is that they are committed to the noble aspiration of improving security measures in the county so that we can all feel safer. Ha!
@5:28…the firm that filed is already exposed as sloppy. It's one of the worst plaintiff personal injury firms I've dealt with in 15+ years of practice. As a defense attorney I'm thrilled when I see that firm on the other side of my cases, knowing they will either settle for pennies on the dollar or do such an awful job in handling the case that I'll win outright.
Guest
Anonymous
October 12, 2017 12:43 am
I'm with you 5:24. I'll have some interesting reading tonight on probate statutes. Certainly these attorneys that filed must know though?
WTF is wrong with you, 5:43. Don't spend your evening reading probate statutes. Go home and make passionate love to your husband/wife/mistress/pool boy.
5:43 here: Seriously. That is a good question. I did not do either. I want to find out why they should not be suing the estate without having to look it up myself.
Guest
Anonymous
October 12, 2017 5:49 am
This week is CPK party right? I usually just show up in their parking lot the day bar results come out.
All mostly good things, way to go this morning law world.
Pleased to hear the suit against MB will be filed soon. It will be an interesting read. I think each day the information coming out is good for the Plaintiff's case. Has anybody heard any additional details about this whackjob using the freight elevator? How did he access and so on…
I have not heard any facts yet which would create a good case for Plaintiffs as against MGM/MB. He used a freight elevator to have multiple bags taken to his room? I have done trade shows where we had displays and boxes sent to a hospitality suite. Know how they got up there? The Bellhop took the service elevator.
"'It's because this individual purposely hid his actions leading up to this event, and it is difficult for us to find the answers to those actions,' Lombardo said. 'We believe he decided to take the lives he did and he had a very purposeful plan that he carried out.' . . . .Police and FBI agents, including behavioral profilers, still haven't found a particular event in Paddock's life that might have triggered the shooting."
The events are terribly tragic. But if the greatest criminal profilers in the world cannot find any clues after the fact, how in the world was MGM supposed to have foreseen this before the fact?
9:33 here: Points well taken – thank you for your insight. I understood he used the freight elevator rather than the bellhop. That he bolted the stairwell door shut and installed cameras outside his room coupled with the security guard getting shot 6 minutes before he started shooting out the windows are a few things I thought may be helpful for Plaintiffs in an uphill battle.
9:33 again: Also, I read somewhere that MB's time stamps on communications are inaccurate.
Don't forget the $ factor in these lawsuits on all sides. MB doesn't want to be seen as bullying victims. A quick settlement is probably their best option. Also, what elected judge is going to throw this out without a trial? You are going to have evidence adduced that casinos (including MB) tell their workers to look the other way when guests act weird). P is going to argue they might have noticed something odd about this guy if they hadn't been purposely looking the other way because of his patronage. That could get you to a jury, and a jury is going to hammer a casino that looked the other way on weird behavior because they guy was funding the casino with his losses.
I am so stoked that the Golden Knights are 3-0, and there was something special about last night's win, more so than just being the first time in NHL history an expansion team went 3-0 or we won our first home game, just the overall game was great and we gave an established franchise a shallacking. I know people said they don't have a chance of making playoffs, but I still hoping they make playoffs, even as a low seed.
I'm thinking the lawsuit will revolve around the security guard who was shot outside the room minutes before the attack started yet it took police an hour to figure out where the shots were coming from. Possible communication failure between MB and Metro.
The police have said that the reason it took a while to get to the shooter's room was because, at the time, he wasn't an active shooter. i.e. bullets weren't flying for an hour straight. They went from room to room on the 32d floor, getting folks out. MGM has said the police's current timeline (guard shot first) is incorrect
Funny, I was thinking the bolting of the emergency stairwell was a bigger achille's heel for MB. At least with that, they could have placed alarms on it that notified security dispatch when the door was opened or had excessive vibrations. Also, they should have a security camera monitoring that door which would have shown his actions in barricading it.
12:36, I was thinking the same. No cameras in hall, but what about stairwell, I can't imagine they would not have cameras. Also, I'm curious about what room service may have seen, if anything.
The 66% bar passage rate is higher than it's been, but is still relatively low. When I sat for the exam, long before there was Boyd Law School, the passage rate was in the high 70's. Had it not been, I'd now be in some other line of work. I'd be a highly depressed middle-aged man saying "would you like fries with your order, Mam?"
Golden Knight's game was awesome. The Team did a great job opening the arena for NHL in the wake of the tragedy. There were no advertisements on the boards only #VegasStrong.
One of the Zamboni Ice Trucks had Adam Kutner plastered to the side. Kind of douchey in my opinion (don't sue me) to be the only advertiser. I hope he made a huuuuuuuuuuuge donation to the victim fund to justify being the only advertiser.
Toyota was advertised on the other Zamboni. Bernstein had an ad before the game and got a plug each time the Knights were playing shorthanded. There were several other ads, but I agree, very classy of the Knights to remove ads from around the ice. They did a fantastic job of honoring both the victims and offering our City's gratitude to the First Responders. The win was a wonderful bonus.
What really bothers me is there NV Energy power play. NV Energy has exactly zero competitors. Every single person in Southern Nevada has to use them for their power company. So who exactly are they advertising to and how much are we collectively paying for that power play sponsorship via higher energy rates? Soon they'll be asking the legislature for a rate increase to pay for this.
If anybody is interested, here is the info and in Israel's court. A-17-762858-C | Paige Gasper, Plaintiff(s) vs. MGM Resorts International, Defendant(s)
I survived the shooting, I am a civil litigator, and I am for gun control, so I feel qualified to speak on the issue. I am disgusted and sick over these lawsuits being filed. I'm not surprised by the firms who filed and the angles they are working, and I knew it would be coming sooner rather than later because someone had to be first to cash in on this tragedy, but it still really disappoints me. Nobody could've prevented what happened. I cannot say enough positive things about Metro, MGM Resorts, and all other first responders. The only person I blame is the shooter. All weekend I felt extremely safe at the concert. All my friends and family who were there would never even consider litigation at this point. This is why people hate us lawyers. In a time where we're looking for positivity and healing, someone files a Complaint one week after the incident.
Hey 11:41, do you work in ID? Cause it sure sounds like you do..
Hey 11:41: Glad you are OK. There is nothing in what you said that reads like ID. If someone wants to be the first to sue Paddock and his Estate to freeze the assets, go for it. I think it will be a lost cause, but go for it. But I read the Complaint. Borders on Rule 11 against some of the Defendants.
Hey 12:23– unless you were also at the concert, you know…. this Blog is supposed to be kinder so I will keep the editorial content to myself.
11:41 – I'm glad you made it out with your life. I hope everyone you were there with is safe too. I completely agree with you. This is the kind of stuff that infuriates the public against lawyers and fuels "tort reform" to the detriment of legitimate plaintiffs and claims. Both politicians and ambulance chasers have been just shameless in their self promotion and angling. Just disgusting.
Or, you know, there's the possibility that Mandalay and the concert festival really didn't do everything they needed to, and the claims are legitimate. Maybe the timing is in poor taste, and little premature and clearly a PR stunt, but that doesn't mean there might be some legitimacy to the claims.
I agree with 1:16. A tragedy like this will always draw opportunists and bad-taste advertising. By all means go after the bump-stock people and whatever assets the shooter might have. As to MB, I think it is simply too soon to say based on the timeline of the guard being shot, based on this guy living in the hotel for almost a week and whether anything fishy should have been noticed, based on whatever past history they may have had with him, etc. I need to know more facts.
"Might be"? Standard under Rule 11 is "likely to have evidentiary support." Better be more than a coin flip or lark and frolic.
I agree with 1:10 that the timing of the sudden lawsuits is somewhat distasteful and opportunistic(considering they had a long time before the statute of limitations and could have waited, at least for another few weeks.) But I also agree with 1;16 that, although the efforts of all involved in responding to the tragedy appears impressive, it is reasonably possible certain safety concerns may eventually be uncovered.
It's always been obvious to me, and a concern, that it would be relatively easy for a hotel guest to engage in a large scale shooting, or some other act of extreme violence, based on the fact most of the hotels don't have metal detectors, and other obvious security technology outside of surveillance cameras. They probably believe it would slow things down, and encourage guests to go to other hotels where they don't have to deal with it. Such detectors are hardly infallible, and there are ways to smuggle weapons into compromised entry areas of buildings that do use detectors. But it's quite probable someone would not have smuggled 32 firearms and other accessories, into a building that had such equipment. But sine it is not a requirement, and I'm not aware of any hotels or casinos that in fact use detectors, this cannot be a ground for liability. But perhaps there will be a movement for such installation to be mandated, although I've heard no talk of it. We need to be processed through metal detectors when entering any official or government building, but it is not a feature of casinos.
That all said, as 11:16 indicates, some security, or other short comings, may eventually be uncovered.
However, what I found concerning is the press statements made by the attorneys who filed the law suits. They were not about to admit the truth, that filing first brings attention to them, gets them ink in the paper,and that they hope to secure a big pay day, enhance their reputation in their field, etc. And I certainly was not foolish enough to expect them to concede all that. But I felt they insulted our intelligence when the statements seemed to indicate that the attorneys' primary goal in all this is to serve the public and be at the forefront of effectuating safety remedies. Yeah, right.
2:17 here again. When I refer to 1:10, I meant 11:41–the shooting survivor who finds the sudden lawsuits disturbing.
So, to effectuate safety remedies is what they are seeking? I think that we all know that is not true. These Nevada attorneys have been here their whole lives, or at least working lives, and not once thought of any need to increase "security" at the casinos prior to this event. Is the proper safety standard going to have to be that we will all have to go through metal detectors in all buildings or locations where people congregate? BS.
3:05 – you said exactly what I was thinking. Are casinos supposed to be run like airports and have TSA violate the visitors? Why not go after the gun makers? Oh yeah…
Let's blame the casino and create a massive security screening process that burdens everyone. Meanwhile, let's also immunize the gun industry and refuse to enact/enforce sensible firearm restrictions so a few red-blooded Americans can collect an arsenal. That's the price of freedom (according to Bill O'Reilly)!
Just thinking off the cuff, but what about the lack of exits or lack of direction when the shooting started? There were 2 exits, so 20,000 people were caged like animals. Let's say it was a fire, not a shooting, then significant death would have occurred. To say there is no possible basis for suit is a little much. Was the suit filed to quickly for publicity- absolutely, but that does not mean MGM was not negligent. I am a criminal defense guy. Just FYI.
The NSC is just not very efficient at releasing opinions.
What are you talking about? They managed to release 6 Advance Opinions and 4 Unpublished Decisions (not including Orders Dismissing signed by the Clerk) in the last 7 days. That is HUGE output for this Court of lazy jurists. Sure there are no Forthcoming Opinions today according to the Clerk, but they are winded from turning out almost 2 orders per Justice in the last week.
This whole debate about whether or not the NSC issues enough decisions within a certain rate of time, totally ignores the issue of quality vs. quantity, and seems to extol from over substance.
That said, I totally agree that no one benefits if cases are unduly languishing. But keep in mind that such court will continue performing its job as it deems appropriate, and will not succumb to sporadic, anonymous internet remarks from attorneys who believe they should issue decisions more rapidly. They can be expected to advance the view that, considering the (supposedly)crushing work load, that the decisions are ready when they are ready, and it is important to take a bit longer to get it right.
If a cake needs to bake a certain amount of time, but a hungry person clamors for the cake to be removed from the oven earlier, it will be inedible.
For that reason, if they ever did accelerate decision making as a result of sporadic attorney pressure(which they will not), a rushed decision does not equate to a better decision.
So, they will continue as is, regardless of occasional criticism, and will continue to reference that the COA helps with the back log, and helps to accelerate matters.
We also need to keep in mind that there are certain matters which no appellate system can timely deal with. Although most appellate systems competently and timely deal with emergency criminal matters such as pending executions and the like, and can adequately deal with emergency injunctive civil relief, there is no appellate system that can adequately deal with many of the Family Law issues.
These matters are so ever changing and dynamic, that there are critical changes on a monthly, weekly, and even daily basis. Some financial issues are worthy of appeal, but many custodial issues are not. Attorneys should do a better job of explaining to people that in certain cases, whether they win or lose their appeal two or three years down the road, it may ultimately not matter. If an appeal is processed when a child is 7, the circumstances will have dramatically changed, in all facets of the parents' lives and child's life, by the time the child is 10 and an appellate decision is finally issued.
True, the quality of NSC opinions makes the quantity look terrific by comparison.
If a baker says he's got so many orders that it will take 3 hours before he can begin on yours, but if only he had more manpower, he could start your in 1, he'd damn well better deliver when more manpower is given. The CoA was sold on the basis that more published opinions could be issued if only they had a few more hands to shoulder the workload. They got 3 more justices. They're producing the same amount of work they were before, if not less. These bakers outta be shit-canned.
The decision to keep taking unduly long because they can is precisely the problem. They promised us the CoA would shorten the waits; it has not. They promised us timely decisions. They have no delivered. Decisions are not cakes. They are charged with providing quality decisions in the time that justice requires. They chose a job in which rendering timely decisions is necessary. If they are incapable of doing that, then they should individually or collectively step aside.
If your baker is charged with delivering your Wedding Cake on Saturday, but delivers it on Thanksgiving but with the assurance that the cake is actually edible, that is a bad baker.
Actually, when we cut through all the colorful language and culinary metaphors and analogies(cake baking, etc.), 3:21 appears to totally agree with y'all, albeit was attempting to be somewhat careful, diplomatic, and circumspect.
But, ultimately, 3:21 shows his/her hand, and what they really think, when they (perhaps inadvertently slip up) and say that the NSC, regardless of how many attorneys may feel, will continue to issue decisions at the rate they deem appropriate. So, ultimately, it does not appear that 3:21 is a NSC apologist.
Perhaps. But where 3:21 appears to differ is in the analysis that the Court will continue doing whatever it wishes unchecked because there is nothing that a bunch of attorneys can do about it. Quite to the contrary, the voters of this state were sold a bill of goods by this very court (minus Stiglich) that this Court realized that cases were taking too long because its workload was supposedly too great but if only provided with a CoA all could be remedied. The Justices (especially Hardesty) lied. The Court is not immune to the slings and arrows of the public it serves. The excuse "Well that is just how it is done" rings hollow when there is no reason that that is the way that things are done.
But if 3:21 believes the NSC will proceed however they please, without fear of meaningful accountability, they are correct.
They in no way, shape or form fear the attorneys, and they know that because of the huge power and status they wield that it would be a rare attorney who would publicly criticize them and support an opponent who decides to run against one of them.
There are exceptions, but they are few, far between, and almost steeped with antiquity. The most relatively recent meaningful exception is itself over a decade ago–when Justice Saitta defeated sitting Justice Becker. If memory serves,Justice Saitta and her family were pretty well-heeled financially, and she collected a lot of funds from non-attorneys. But, obviously, some of her funds must have been raised from attorneys.
But that election was a somewhat unique outlier and was more than 10 years ago. Even attorneys who I know to be NSC critics behind the scenes, are quite fawning and obsequious to the Justices when conversing with them at various judicial events.
So, no, the justices do not fear reprisals from the attorneys, IMO. And they usually are unopposed in re-election, or they draw token opposition from gadfly perennial candidate types.
Since that is the general reality of these dynamics, why the Hell would they ever fear us or adjust how they process cases based on what we may think?
Why does the CoA get a pass in this analysis? Two weeks without issuing a single decision.
And no published opinions in more than a year. And, their orders can't even be cited.
The quality of some of the recent decisions is definitely up.
I was no huge fan of Kephart as a prosecutor, so I can't believe I am taking up for him. Never thought I'd see the day.
However, even if he were my worst enemy of all time, a public reprimand is too severe and disproportionate(although he did stipulate to it). At worst, it should have been a private reprimand or some sort of cautionary admonishment.
If we look at the Judge Bill Potter matter, we can understand the Commission's concern. After an article was printed which the judge believed made him look insensitive to gay people on the eve of his re-election, he contacted the paper to offer his side of the story. And boy did he offer his side of the story–all supported by good article placement, dramatic headline, photograph, several quotes from Potter, all involving a highly charged custody matter still pending before him, and all of it disseminated in the daily news paper.
But with the Kephart matter, understanding that since he now sits as a judge he is inviting ethical scrutiny if he opens his mouth about an old case he worked on as a prosecutor where a re-trial will now occur, it is difficult to see the real close nexus or the real likelihood of harm or prejudice. If he were still a prosecutor, the public would expect him to say that he and his fellow prosecutors got it right the first time and that he still thinks the defendant is guilty. The public expects this, and if any of them were ever selected as potential jurors in a re-trial, the few that actually saw the broadcast would hardly expect to be tainted or influenced by the fact that one of the original prosecutors on the case stands by the guilty verdict. And if for some unexpected reason, some prospective juror is actually influenced by the fact that one of the original prosecutors, now happens to be a sitting judge and believes the original decision was correct, such relatively rare prospective juror could be screened with relative ease. Most jurors realize that prosecutors often become judges, and would not be influenced if a prosecutor who now happens to be a judge stands by the guilty verdicts he/she received years ago. I don't believe that the fact one of the former prosecutors is now a judge will realistically cause many jurors to imbue the original verdict with enhanced credibility, merely because the former prosecutor/current judge made a couple brief remarks that he believes the old verdict was appropriate at the time. Unfortunately, the public does not nearly imbue the judiciary with the respect and credibility the Commission may believe they do.
But obviously the Commission believes the possible juror taint is much greater than I do, and apparently Kephart's lawyers would also disagree with my analysis as they , in short order, seemed to readily agree with a public reprimand. Or, it is possible the lawyers would believe views such as mine have some validity, but they did not care to take a chance with the panel that would ultimately decide this.
Possible juror taint. Possible fellow jurist taint. Raises the specter that behind the bench Kephart would advocate for his former position. It is the perception that the system is slanted, that jurists continue to advocate for their former clients/offices once they take the Bench. For example, you are criminal defendant who gets a reversal and your case remanded to Kephart. Why wouldn't you believe that his predisposition is that the earlier conviction should stick?
This was clearly out of bounds. Kephart was not smart/ethical enough to know that it was clearly out of bounds, but Bill Terry was smart enough to tell Kephart.
@ 4:14 You're wrong. Having a sitting judge speak about a defendant/petitioner's guilt or innocence when the case is being heard by a colleague is unethical. That pressures the colleague to rule in a certain way.
8:40 is so completely correct that I have confidence that he/she is well groomed.
To:8:40: 4:14 here again. I accept that I'm wrong, particularly considering the way you phrase the situation.
But the judicial field has changed dramatically. It is not like years ago where there were far fewer of them, there was congeniality, they bounced ideas off each other, etc. At the RJC there are now so many of them, they are so isolated, often without much meaningful contact with their colleagues, and in high profile case there is a barrage of media and internet input and opinions on such case, etc. If one judge of several dozen, who is probably on a different floor,, states in an interview that he thinks the person he prosecuted years ago is guilty, the judge hearing the case is in no way surprised by that, is not interested in that, and will not be swayed by it. Would the judge be swayed if instead of Kephart granting the media interview he was instead mentioning to his staff and friends in the legal profession that he still thinks the person is guilty? Of course not.
I recognize it's still unethical, and recognize that in a much smaller, much closer connected judiciary(such as in smaller towns and cities) the taint could very well be there. But I simply don't think as a practical matter there is a taint.Again, I appreciate it is unethical because of the possibility of a taint, but as a practical matter there is no taint. I doubt any judge assigned to the case cares, or is surprised by, Kephart indicating that someone he succeeded in convicting is in fact guilty in his opinion. It would only be surprising if he said the opposite. They could care less what he said in some interview. I simply don't believe there is one District Judge in this county who would be even remotely influenced by,or would ever rule on a matter based on Kephart's statement that someone he successfully prosecuted years ago is in fact guilty in his opinion.
Now if you want to discuss the taint with potential jurors, that is more complex, interesting, and, granted, far more likely. But even that, IMO, is more remote than many seem to think.
To the firms who have sued the ESTATE of Stephen Paddock less than 10 days after the date of death:
You are f***ing idiots who didn't bother to read any of the probate statutes. If you don't fix this problem, you'll be committing malpractice, bigly. You can't file an A-Case against an Estate 10 days after the date of death, geniuses. But of course, maybe you do know that, and you just don't care because you're going for the free publicity, trying to leverage as much as possible from this tragedy.
Sincerely,
A probate attorney.
as someone who knows nothing about this, and who is not the plaintiff's attorney I swear, why not?
I hate to even say because people who are this sloppy deserve to be exposed in court, not helped in anonymous online comments.
To:5:22. These attorneys think that all that is necessary is that they understand injury cases. They probably did not even consider the probate implications. In all likelihood, whether or not they have some experience in generic personal injury case, it may be that they have little or no experience in cases involving death or serious injury causes by security concerns, and/or in successfully suing large casino conglomerates. They probably have little or no experience suing casinos or hotels concerning such matters.
That said, the attorneys may simply believe that they will not concern themselves too much with the hotel/security aspect, but instead pursue Paddock's estate directly because their myopic, simplistic analysis is, well liability is easy to prove because he shot people for no good reason, and he supposedly has millions in assets sitting around because the media quotes his estranged brother as saying he "made millions in real estate."
So, yes, in addition to probably having little or no experience successfully suing huge conglomerates for serious injuries involving supposed security defects, they probably have no experience as to suing deceased people directly based on money that person's estate may have.
And therefore, you are correct that if their approach was to concentrate on Paddock rather than litigation as to the hotel or concert arrangers, they are largely locked out because they apparently know nothing of probate rules.
As one poster pointed out, they are just interested in suing first, getting their name in ink, and hopefully to eventually score a big pay day and be perceived as true players in the local legal field. But, in addition to knowing little or nothing as to how to properly proceed(including your very valid probate points) they are so laughably inept at public relations that they insult the intelligence of everyone in the community, including the people who have very little in the way of intelligence that can be insulted.
Instead of saying some generic remarks about how their client and others were killed or viciously harmed and how there needs to be accountability and compensation, they essentially climb up on a soap box and assert that their motivation , in filing the law suit so soon, is that they are committed to the noble aspiration of improving security measures in the county so that we can all feel safer. Ha!
@5:28…the firm that filed is already exposed as sloppy. It's one of the worst plaintiff personal injury firms I've dealt with in 15+ years of practice. As a defense attorney I'm thrilled when I see that firm on the other side of my cases, knowing they will either settle for pennies on the dollar or do such an awful job in handling the case that I'll win outright.
I'm with you 5:24. I'll have some interesting reading tonight on probate statutes. Certainly these attorneys that filed must know though?
WTF is wrong with you, 5:43. Don't spend your evening reading probate statutes. Go home and make passionate love to your husband/wife/mistress/pool boy.
You're welcome.
5:43 here: Seriously. That is a good question. I did not do either. I want to find out why they should not be suing the estate without having to look it up myself.
This week is CPK party right? I usually just show up in their parking lot the day bar results come out.
It's tomorrow