LawNewz first reported on Cinemark’s request two months ago in July, which led to a #BoycottCiemark campaign on Twitter. A jury had found the theater chain not liable back in May after less than one day of deliberation, striking down the victims’ argument that the better security was needed and siding with Cinemark’s defense that the shooting was unforeseeable. According to the Times article, the settlement offer was minimal: $150,000 to be split among 41 plaintiffs, or about $3,659 each if split evenly, plus promises of improvements to Cinemark safety and security.
The plaintiffs had agreed to a split where the three most badly injured victims got $30,000 each and everyone else split the remaining $60,000 at just $1,579 each. Cinemark had a news release ready, but at the last minute, one plaintiff, who was paralyzed on top of losing her child as well as the baby she was carrying, refused to agree to the deal. Quickly, 37 of the plaintiffs pulled out of the case, knowing it was a long shot. One of the plaintiffs, Marcus Weaver, summed up the dilemma he and his fellow survivors were in succinctly when he spoke to the LA Times: “Either seek justice and go into debt, or take that pitiful offering of money and the improved public safety.”
James Holmes, the shooter, was convicted in 2014 and will spend the rest of his life in prison.