$55 million against security company at apartment complex after gang shooting. San Bernardino County.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  Plaintiff was a 17-year old high school student who lived at Aventerra Apartment complex in Fontana. On August 26, 2006 he was sitting on the stairs of the apartment complex at approximately 12:30 a.m., hanging out with two friends. At the same time, a large group of males that appeared to be gang members were having a party outside one of the apartment units, in violation of numerous house rules for the apartment complex.

  The Stratus Security Guard, Darrell Hill, approached the individuals having the party. Thereafter, Darrell Hill left the area, walked past the plaintiff and went to his car which was located in one of the other apartment complexes. Thereafter, plaintiff was shot nine times by a member of the local Crips gang.

   

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  That defendant Stratus Security Inc., its owner Sally Antoon and A&A Security Services and its owner Sherif Antoon were all essentially one and the same entities, with significant comingling and overlapping of assets, employees and effort.

  That the security guard failed to perform the duties that were required of him by not breaking up the party, not identifying who the ten individuals were visiting, not calling 911 to report what he believed to be gang members partying on the premises. That he failed to remain in the area to observe and report and when he left the area walking by the plaintiff, he failed to warn and failed to advise plaintiff that he was not permitted under apartment rules to loiter on the stairs after 10:00 p.m. Plaintiff further contends that one of the individuals at the party was the same individual that approached plaintiff and shot him nine times.

• Defendant's Contentions:

  That Stratus and A&A were separate corporations and that all corporate formalities were followed.

  That the Stratus Security Guard was only a “courtesy patrol” and his only duties were to be the “eyes and ears” of management and to do various minor activities like close the pool at 10:00 p.m. and close the laundry room after 10:00 p.m. That the courtesy patrol was only there to report improper activity to the management and not to prevent crime.

  Defendants also disputed that the individuals the security guard had approached at the outdoor party were the same individuals that shot plaintiff. Finally, defendants argued that the shooting was not foreseeable and that it was an unpreventable random act of violence.