Cheesecake Factory Cleared of Liability in Washington Mall Shooting
Federal judge dismisses negligence claims regarding a 2022 shooting at a Tukwila restaurant.
1Court Dismisses Negligence Claims
U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein ruled that The Cheesecake Factory and Allied Universal Security Services are not liable for a 2022 shooting. Larisa Sopka, who was struck by a bullet while dining, failed to prove the defendants could have reasonably anticipated the violence that occurred inside the Tukwila restaurant.
2Unforeseeable Nature of Violence
The court determined that previous instances of rowdy behavior at the restaurant did not establish a pattern suggesting imminent gun violence. Judge Rothstein noted that staff had no reasonable way to anticipate the shooting in time to prevent it, as no prior incidents of this nature had occurred at the location.
3Security Contractor Scope Limited
Allied Universal Security Services was also cleared of responsibility by the court. Their contract with Westfield Southcenter Mall specifically restricted them from entering tenant spaces unless requested. Consequently, the security firm held no contractual duty to monitor or patrol the interior of The Cheesecake Factory where the incident took place.
4Plaintiffs Alleged Rampant Crime
The Sopka family filed the lawsuit in January 2024, arguing that the mall and restaurant failed to safeguard premises despite a history of local crime. They cited past incidents including assaults, carjackings, and robberies at the mall to support their claim that the defendants were negligent in their security protocols.
5Lack of Specific Threat Knowledge
Judge Rothstein emphasized that there was no evidence Allied Universal knew or should have known of the specific threat posed that evening. While the firm may have been aware of general violent incidents at the mall, they had not assumed responsibility for the safety of customers inside the restaurant itself.
6Employee Testimony on Security
The plaintiffs highlighted comments from a restaurant employee who claimed that the lack of security guards at the door made the venue vulnerable. Despite these concerns regarding the absence of dedicated security personnel, the court found the existing evidence insufficient to establish that a shooting was an imminent, foreseeable risk.
7Contractual Control and Duty
The ruling clarified that legal duty depends on control over the premises. Because Allied Universal lacked authority over the interior of the restaurant, they could not be held responsible for failing to protect patrons from criminal acts. The court found no evidence that the security company failed to respond to calls.
8Legal Precedent for Businesses
This decision reinforces the legal standard that businesses are generally not liable for sudden, unforeseeable criminal acts committed by third parties. By dismissing the claims, the court maintained that property owners and contractors are not insurers of public safety against random acts of violence that cannot be reasonably predicted or prevented.