Lawyers for Allen Premium Outlets told the Texas Supreme Court Wednesday the mall had no legal duty to protect those on their property during a 2023 mass shooting at the shopping center.
High court justices heard arguments Wednesday in the 2024 lawsuit filed by families of several victims killed and some of those injured in the May 6, 2023 shooting in which 33-year-old gunman Mauricio Garcia killed eight people and injured seven before he was killed by police.
Their suit alleges mall owner Simon Property Group could have foreseen a mass shooting event at the outdoor mall due to the country’s “epidemic” of mass shootings and previous incidents at the company’s other mall properties — but the company didn’t adequately secure the Allen mall.
Simon Property Group is seeking to dismiss the suit, arguing the shopping center was not legally responsible for Garcia's “terroristic” and “unforeseeable” actions.
Simon’s attorney Monica Latin told justices it’s too high of a burden to expect businesses to protect customers against incidents as extreme as mass shootings.
“What, short of snipers on the roof, would have prevented this attack?” Latin said.
The case started in a Dallas court, where a judge denied Simon Property Group’s motion to dismiss the suit. The Dallas Fifth Court of Appeals upheld that decision.
The plaintiffs include the families of security guard Christian LaCour, engineer Aishwarya Thatikonda, parents Kyu Song and Cindy Cho and their youngest son James Cho, sisters Daniela and Sofia Mendoza, and Elio Cumana Rivas. Also suing is Irvin Walker, who was shot several times through his car but survived.
The suit alleges the Allen Police Department responded to more than 3,000 calls to the outlet mall in the three years before the shooting, sometimes receiving multiple calls a day. Allen police advocated for more uniformed officers to secure the mall, according to the suit, but Simon Property Group and Allied “ignored” those requests.
The case hinges on whether the victims’ claims prove that property owners had a legal duty to protect those on their property from crimes committed by a third party and failed to do so.
“Obviously it's not reasonable to have snipers on the roof at a Dunkin' Donuts,” said Byron Henry, attorney for the victims. “But it may be required to have a number of armed security guards at an open-air mall in which they've advertised all the security things that they do for security and made safe.”
The plaintiffs also allege authorities received a separate call about the shooting six days before the mass shooting at issue. Letting the lawsuit proceed would give them the chance to uncover details about the previous shooting call and whether Simon Property Group could have taken preventative security measures afterward, Henry said.
Latin, Simon's attorney, argued the mall isn’t a high crime area and mass shootings can happen anywhere without prior warning.
Garcia was named defendant in the lawsuit despite his death. So was Allied Security Services, the security company with which Simon partners.
Garcia had been armed with eight weapons and wore tactical gear the day of the shooting. Law enforcement said Garcia had “neo-Nazi ideation,” wore a patch bearing a phrase used by white supremacy groups and made posts on social media suggesting he was scouting out the mall weeks ahead for an attack.
In the weeks following the shooting, KERA News learned Garcia signed the “SS” lightning bolt symbol of Adolf Hitler’s military multiple times while filling out an application to become a licensed security officer.
This is at least the third lawsuit against Simon Property Group over shootings at Simon shopping centers.
Two lawsuits were filed in 2024 on behalf of people injured and killed in a shooting at a Simon-owned mall in Greenwood, Indiana, in 2022. A woman whose 13-year-old daughter was killed outside Concord Mills Mall in North Carolina sued Simon and Allied Universal in 2021. And a man hit during a 2005 shooting at Tacoma Mall in Washington sued Simon Property Group for negligence.
Last year, the Texas Supreme Court agreed to dismiss a lawsuit arguing Home Depot and the security company it partnered with were liable for a shooting at the store that killed a Dallas police officer in 2018.
Latin said while the Allen mall shooting is different, the ruling should be the same.
"This is at the farthest extreme quadrant of the type of criminal conduct, and yet we're talking about imposing liability on a landowner because they had an idea that it could possibly happen on their property," she said.
Toluwani Osibamowo is KERA’s law and justice reporter. Got a tip? Email Toluwani at tosibamowo@kera.org.
KERA News is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider making a tax-deductible gift today. Thank you.
