The news reports all say that the hotel is suing hundreds of the victims who were shot,( and in the case of the victims who died, the hotel is suing the surviving families.)
What are they suing for?
The hotel says that the reason for the suit is to pre-emptively dismiss the suits which will soon be filed by the victims.
I need a legal beagle to fight my ignorance: how do you sue somebody who hasn’t done anything to you and hasn’t (yet) asked you to pay?
I can understand why the victims (and especially their lawyers ) want to sue the hotel: to get paid.
I can understand why the hotel wants to defend itself.
But for these two things to happen, it seems logical that the order would be reversed:
First-- the victims file a suit against the hotel, listing claims for monetary reimbursement, and THEN the hotel files its defense, asking to dismiss the suit.
But it seems that the hotel has filed the first suit, (asking to be resolved of responsibility)–before it has been accused of anything.
It’s a reasonable claim, and the court will have to decide.
But to my non-legal mind, it seems like the hotel is jumping the gun.
What are they demanding from the victims in this suit?
It seems like they are demanding that the government do something, not the victims.
The hotel wants the government to recognize the attack as an act of terrorism, not a criminal act; this then requires the government to apply the post-September11th anti-terrorism act( which keeps the hotel free from blame).
What specific charge is the hotel making against the victims, for which the victims must appear in court to defend themselves?