Security company settles with Target stabbing victims

The private security company whose employee shot a knife-wielding assailant at a Target store in downtown Los Angeles has reached a tentative settlement with two shoppers who were stabbed in the November 2022 attack. Target Corp., accused of negligence and premises liability over the attack, will remain a defendant in the consolidated case brought by the two victims.

Watermark Security Group Inc. will pay $500,000 to plaintiffs Brayden Medina Molina and Joo Hye Song to cover their medical expenses. Medina Molina and Song are represented by Robert S. Glassman of Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP.

Target's contract with Watermark provided for one armed security guard to stand at the front of the Target store on Figueroa and 7th Street in downtown Los Angeles. The security guard on duty that day was Enedino Espinoza.

A man walked into the store, grabbed a butcher knife from a store shelf and told 9-year-old Medina Molina that he was going to "stab and kill him." The complaint alleges that neither the armed security guard nor anyone working at the store tried to help the boy - who tried in vain to escape. This lack of response allowed the suspect to continue walking through the store and stab Song. Both victims were hospitalized.

Watermark's attorneys said that Target was in sole control of its store, including security policies, video surveillance, and merchandise and display. A Target employee did approach the assailant as he was attempting to open the knife package, radioed a member of the company's asset protection team and walked away, thinking it was a theft issue.

"Upon hearing from Asset Protection on the walkie talkie that a man had a knife in the store, Mr. Espinoza immediately responded. The guard was dependent on the information given to him on the radio to determine the assailant's whereabouts as he was on the move through the store. It took Mr. Espinoza a minute to intercept the assailant after hearing on the radio that there was a man with a knife," Kelly M. Henry wrote in Watermark's application for order determining good faith settlement.

"The guard encountered the man near the checkout area, where the assailant sped up and lunged at Mr. Espinoza with the knife seeking to kill the guard. The assailant was stopped by a single shot fired from the guard's firearm. The entire incident, from the time the perpetrator entered Target until the time that he was shot totaled 4 minutes. It was less than 3 minutes from the time the knife packaging was opened to the assailant being shot," she continued. Henry is a partner in Berman, Berman, Berman, Schneider & Lowary LLP's Riverside office. Medina Molina v. Target Corporation et al., 23STCV06764 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed March 28, 2023).

Espinoza sued Target for emotional distress in October 2023. He alleges that Target created an unsafe environment by displaying kitchen knives in an area frequented by mentally ill individuals. Espinoza is represented by Suzanne E. Rand-Lewis. Espinoza v. Target Corporation, BOP FIGAT7TH LLC et al., 23STCV19129 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Aug. 10, 2023).

The plaintiffs' attorneys in the cases have said that Target has obstructed discovery. In August, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Anne Hwang granted a motion to compel the deposition of a person most knowledgeable about other knife attacks at Target stores. Hwang also denied a motion in part to compel Target to allow an inspection of its software which tracks security incidents at its retail stores. Hwang had tentatively granted the motion, but Target's attorneys raised security concerns about a third party's access to its database to which fewer than 10 people nationwide have access.