This case involved a tragic incident wherein Plaintiffs’ friend sustained fatal injuries
and Plaintiffs sustained debilitating severe injuries as a result of Defendant’s failure to keep
the security garage gate in good working order.

At least one (1) month prior to the subject incident, the security garage gate to the
subject underground garage would remain open and on occasion at or about 8:00 p.m. the
manager would close the gate manually. Defendant was aware that the security garage
gate was broken and that it remained open. However, Defendant failed to take minimally
burdensome measures of having the security gate repaired. Instead, Defendant arbitrarily
at times would manually close the gate. Only after occurrence of this tragic incident,
Defendant finally replaced the motor for the security garage gate and employed security
guards.

Prior to the subject incident, another tenant was robbed at gun point at the subject
underground garage. The tenants of the building had meetings with Defendant’s
representative wherein the tenants voiced their concern about the non-working security
garage gate allowing access to intruders. In particular, the tenants were concerned about
their safety since the subject building was located in a very high crime area of Los Angeles
plagued with rival street gangs (Blood and Crips). In fact, prior to the subject incident, the
manager of the building had been subject of a drive by shooting. Defendant knew or
should have known that the subject building was located in a gang neighborhood
particularly because there would be shots fired or heard around the subject building.

Additionally, circumstantial evidence of the fact that Defendant was aware that security
measures were necessary for the subject building was established by the fact that during
the time period of 2000-2001, Defendant had employed security guards for the subject
building. Defendant had no explanation for why the security guards were not retained after
2001.

Plaintiffs relied upon Defendant since the subject apartment building was built to
look like a secure complex as an inducement to rent especially in high-crime neighborhood.
The subject building was considered to be a security building because the building was
fenced in and access into the building would be only through locked gates. As stated
above, Defendant’s manager had a custom and practice to close the garage security gate
by hand around 8:00p.m. However, on May 23, 2005, the manager failed to close and lock
the garage security gate at 8:00p.m. or arrange for anyone else to do so.

On May 23, 2005, at approximately 1:00 a.m., Plaintiffs were hanging out in the
underground parking of Defendant’s building in Los Angeles, California. At or about 1:00
a.m. a black SUV was observed by Plaintiffs entering the underground parking garage
through the open unlocked gate. Once the SUV entered the parking, the driver passed the
Plaintiffs and made a turn in the parking garage driving back towards the open security
garage gate wherein the passengers within the SUV started to shoot at Plaintiffs at close
range with nine (9) mm guns. The suspects then fled the scene by driving out of the
unsecured garage. The suspects were not tenants of the subject building. Because the
garage security gate was standing open at 1:00a.m., plaintiffs’ assailants were able to drive
their black SUV vehicle into the garage and shoot Plaintiffs multiple times.

"Out of the generic obligations owed by landowners to maintain property in a
reasonably safe condition, the law of negligence in the landlord-tenant context has evolved
to impose a duty of reasonable care on the owner of an apartment building to protect its
tenants from foreseeable third party criminal assaults." Castaneda, v. Olsher, (2005) 132
Cal. App. 4th 627.

Ordinarily, there is no duty to protect others from third party criminal activity.
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 425, 435. However,
courts, “have recognized exceptions to the general no-duty-to-protect rule” one of which
is the “special relationship’ doctrine.” Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224,
235. “Courts have found such a special relationship in cases involving the relationship
between business proprietors such as shopping centers, restaurants, and bars, and their
tenants, patrons, or invitees.” Id. Based on the special relationship, “commercial
proprietors ... are required to ‘maintain land in their possession and control in a reasonably
safe condition’ and ... this general duty includes taking ‘reasonable steps to secure
common areas against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties that are likely to occur in
the absence of such precautionary measures.” Id. at 237.

In the case at hand, Defendant’s property was appropriately designed as a secure
complex, considering the hostile neighborhood, with perimeter fencing on all sides and selfclosing
and self-locking gates and doors. According to Defendant, all doors and gates
including the garage motorized security gate were supposed to be closed and locked at all
times. A remote control, issued only to tenants, was required to open the garage security
gate. This garage security gate was designed to self-close and lock automatically after an
authorized vehicle entered.

The garage security gate for Defendant’s building at issue began to malfunction at
least a month prior to this shooting incident. Fame Gardens resident manager admitted to
knowing that the garage security gate would not automatically close or lock. However,
rather than properly repair the defective gate motor, Defendant would sometimes leave the
garage security gate standing open including the night plaintiffs were shot.

The court in Ambriz v. Kelegian 146 Cal. App.4th 1519, 1534, held that requiring
a landlord to maintain doors and locks in good working order places a minimal burden on
the landlord, particularly considering the fact that the landlord originally installed the locks
and gates, presumably to maintain controlled and limited access to the property. Because
requiring a landlord to use, maintain and/or repair already existing doors and locks imposes
only a minimal burden on the landlord, the degree of foreseeability required need not be
as great as that required in Sharon P. or Ann M. The court in Ambriz concluded that the
[plaintiff] needed to show only “regular reasonable foreseeability” to establish the existence
of such minimal duties.

In circumstances in which the burden of preventing future harm caused by third
party criminal conduct is great or onerous ... heightened foreseeability-shown by prior
similar criminal incidents or other indications of a reasonably foreseeable risk of violent
criminal assaults in that location-will be required. By contrast, in cases in which harm can
be prevented by simple means or by imposing merely minimal burdens, only ‘regular’
reasonable foreseeability as opposed to heightened foreseeability is required.” Delgado,
Id. at 243-244, fn. 24.

Defendant had 81 units for rent. It was obligated to rent to low and very-low income
tenants. Defendant’s apartment was located in a very-high crime area of Los Angeles
plagued with rival street-gangs (Blood and Crips). According to testimony and police
records, Defendant’s tenants and a manager had suffered from prior violent criminal
incidents including numerous robberies, assaults with a deadly weapon, batteries, and
shots fired between 2000 and 2005. There was testimony of a prior robbery inside the
garage. Defendant’s management had actual notice that violent crime was highlyforeseeable
and that a strong security plan was necessary to prevent harm. This high level
of crime foreseeability created a duty for Defendant to warn tenants and invitees of the
impending danger, and provide adequate security.

The Delgado court also reiterated that a plaintiff can establish the heightened
degree of foreseeability necessary to impose a duty to take additional burdensome security
measures such as hiring security guards not only by presenting evidence of prior similar
criminal incidents occurring on the property, but also, in the alternative, by presenting
evidence of "other indications of a reasonably foreseeable risk of violent criminal assaults
in that location...." Delgado, at 239 (italics added.)

Expounding on the significance of the phrase "or other indications of a reasonably
foreseeable risk of violent criminal assaults in that location" as used in Sharon P., the
Delgado court explained: "The disjunctive phrase was employed to acknowledge that,
even in the absence of evidence of prior similar crimes on the defendant's premises, other
circumstances--for example, similar violent crime occurring on the premises of a nearby
and substantially similar business establishment [citation]--might provide the requisite
heightened degree of foreseeability." Delgado, at 240, fn. 19.

Delgado held that a defendant's duty “is premised upon the danger that the
defendant knows or reasonably should anticipate, and that the defendant's duty is simply
to take reasonable steps in light of those circumstances.” Id. 247. The court also held that
as a matter of logic, it is difficult to understand how the existence or scope of a proprietor's
duty properly could depend upon the nature of the criminal conduct “that actually occurred,”
rather than the danger of which the defendant was or should have been aware. Id.

Prior to May 23, 2005, the owners and managers of Defendant failed in their duty
to reasonably assess the foreseeable security risk in the common areas and implement
an adequate security plan based on the nature of the premises, the crime demographics,
and the location. Defendant’s apartment was located in Southwest Division as designated
by Los Angeles Police Department. The Southwest Division has long been considered one
of the most dangerous areas in the city and a stronghold of rival Blood and Crip gangs.

Defendant’s manager and supervisor surprisingly testified that they were unaware of the
high crime nature of their neighborhood or that any acts of violence had occurred on or
near their property. Both claimed to have never researched crime statistics and admit to
not maintaining records of incidents on their property. Ignoring serious criminal activity and
failing to repair security amenities such as a lockable garage security gate falls below the
standard of care and is considered negligent property management.

This action involved a tragic wrongful death accident wherein Defendant, MTA’s
employee, Defendant, Bus Driver negligently made a right turn and ran over decedent,
while she was walking within the cross-walk, on a “walk” sign, at the intersection of First
Street and Broadway in the City of Los Angeles.

Prior to the incident, decedent’s employer had dropped off decedent at the
intersection of First Street and Broadway, Los Angeles, California. Decedent’s employer
testified that he witnessed decedent enter the cross-walk on a “walk” sign. He further
testified that while he was proceeding southbound on Broadway, he noticed the subject
MTA Bus driver traveling at a high rate of speed northbound on Broadway. Defendant, bus
driver, made a statement to the reporting officer that while making his right turn he did not
notice any pedestrian’s within the cross-walk. However, Defendant bus driver admitted
in deposition that he felt a bump while making his turn and immediately stopped;
upon exiting the bus he noticed decedent pinned underneath the bus’ front right tire
with her body within the crosswalk. Following the incident, although, Defendant, bus
driver, attempted to move the bus, decedent remained pinned underneath the bus until the
paramedics arrived at which point she had died.

Decedent was a 53 year old single mother at the time of her death, and was not
only a loving mother and grandmother, but a hard worker. Decedent would work at
Gourmet facility during the graveyard shift, from 10:30 p.m. until the next day anywhere
from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. After finishing her work decedent would come home to take
care of her grandchildren so that her daughter/Plaintiff could go to work and school.
Additionally, decedent took care of her own elderly parents. The only opportunity decedent
had to rest was on the weekends.

During the spare time that decedent had, she would spend it with her daughter and
grandchildren. They went to church together every Sunday. They also enjoyed watching
movies together and going out for lunch with the family. In addition to going to church on
Sundays, decedent helped the church with its special functions and activities.

Despite being a single mother decedent had saved from years of hard work and had
been able to purchase a triplex which she occupied with her daughter as well as her
grandchildren. Decedent and her daughter shared the responsibility of managing the
triplex. Decedent also financially supported her family. Decedent would not only pay for
the living expenses of her grandchildren and daughter, she also paid the home mortgage
and her daughter’s car payments. Decedent was a kind person always willing to help
another person. Following the purchase of her triplex, decedent even helped support her
sister’s step-daughter and daughter while she was pregnant by allowing them live with her.

As a result of the subject incident, decedent’s family sustained a great loss.