A federal judge in Denver on Wednesday ruled that injured victims and families of those killed in the July 2012 theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., can move forward with lawsuits against Cinemark USA Inc.

The 10 separate suits, filed in U.S. District Court of the District of Colorado in Denver, allege the theater company was negligent in failing to provide adequate security and was responsible for the victims' wrongful deaths.

The July 20 shooting killed 12 people and injured 58 others after suspect James Holmes allegedly opened fire during a premiere screening of “The Dark Knight Rises.”

Cinemark last year filed a motion to dismiss the claims of the lawsuits, alleging that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim and that their premise that the theater company “should have known” Mr. Holmes would commit mass murder could not be foreseen, according to court documents. The Plano, Texas-based theater company also claims that previous violent disturbances at the theater did not make the attack a foreseeable event.

But U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson dismissed a claim of negligence while allowing claims under the Colorado Premises Liability Act and wrongful death claims, according to court documents.

The state's premises liability act covers landowners' liability.

In the order, Judge Jackson wrote that the lawsuits pose questions of interpretation of law.

“I suspect that many people, despite overwhelming sympathy and grief for the victims of the Aurora theater shootings, might upon hearing about these lawsuits have had reactions like, 'How could a theater be expected to prevent something like this?' I confess that I am one of those people,” the judge wrote.

%%BREAK%%

The shooting also raises complex insurance coverage questions, as the company self-insures portions of its liability coverage.

“I agree, of course, that the issues of liability and damages are for the jury. However, to get to a jury, the plaintiffs must first state a plausible legal claim and then show that there is genuine dispute of material fact for the jury to resolve. This Court today holds only that plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a claim to survive a motion to dismiss,” the judge wrote.

Calls requesting comment from Cinemark where not immediately returned.