27-CV-21-9182

Filed in District Court

State of Minnesota
7/27/2021 3:19 PM

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: PERSONAL INJURY
CASE FILE NO: ____________

L.H., a minor, by his parents and natural

guardians D.H. and K.H.; and K.H.,
individually,

PLAINTIFFS,
SUMMONS
vs.

MALL OF AMERICA, an assumed name;

MALL OF AMERICA COMPANY LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; and
MOA HOLDINGS I LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company,

DEFENDANTS.

THIS SUMMONS IS DIRECTED TO MALL OF AMERICA, MALL OF AMERICA

COMPLANY LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and MOA HOLDINGS I LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company.

1. YOU ARE BEING SUED. The Plaintiffs have started a lawsuit against you. The
Plaintiffs’ Complaint against you is attached to this Summons. Do not throw these papers away.
They are official papers that affect your rights. You must respond to this lawsuit even though it
may not yet be filed with the Court and there may be no court file number on this Summons.
2. YOU MUST REPLY WITHIN 20 DAYS TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS. You
must give or mail to the person who signed this Summons a written response called an Answer
within 20 days of the date on which you received this Summons. You must send a copy of your
Answer to the person who signed this summons located at:
3700 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402.
3. YOU MUST RESPOND TO EACH CLAIM. The Answer is your written response
to the Plaintiffs’ Complaint. In your Answer you must state whether you agree or disagree with
each paragraph of the Complaint. If you believe the Plaintiffs should not be given everything
asked for in the Complaint, you must say so in your Answer.
 27-CV-21-9182
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/27/2021 3:19 PM

YOU WILL LOSE YOUR CASE IF YOU DO NOT SEND A WRITTEN

4.
RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT TO THE PERSON WHO SIGNED THIS
-

SUMMONS. If you do not Answer within 20 days, you will lose this case. You will not get to
tell your side of the story, and the Court may decide against you and award the Plaintifi‘s
everything they have asked for in the Complaint. If you do not want to contest the claims stated
in the Complaint, you do not need to respond. A default judgment can then be entered against
you for the relief requested in the complaint.
5. LEGAL ASSISTANCE. You may wish to get legal help from a lawyer. If you do
not have a lawyer, the Court Administrator may have information about places where you can
get legal assistance. Even if you cannot get legal help, you must still provide a written
Answer to protect your rights or you may lose the case.
6. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION. The parties may agree to or be
ordered to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process under Rule 114 of the
Minnesota General Rules of Practice. You must still send your written response to the
Complaint even if you expect to use alternative means of resolving this dispute.

Dated: September 28, 2020 BRIOL & BENSON, PLLC

By
262
Sec §0n( l9
finer #0213998
J r /h A. Pull (MN #0386968)
3700 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Phone: (612) 756-7777
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for the Plaintifls

 27-CV-21-9182
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/27/2021 3:19 PM

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: PERSONAL INJURY
CASE FILE NO:

L.H., a minor, by his parents and natural

guardians D.H. and K.H.; and K.H.,
individually,

PLAINTIF FS ,

vs.
AMENDED
MALL OF AMERICA, an assumed name;
MALL 0F AMERICA COMPANY, LLC, a COMPLAINT
Delaware Limited Liability Company; MOA
HOLDINGS I LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and MOAC MALL
HOLDINGS LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company,

DEF ENDANT S.

Plaintiffs, by and for their action against the above-named Defendants, state and allege as

follows:

THE PARTIES
l. Plaintiff L.H. is a minor child, age six. He resides in Woodbury, Minnesota, with

his parents and siblings.

2. Plaintiffs D.H. and K.H. are the parents of L.H. They reside in Woodbury,

Minnesota, with L.H. and their other minor children.

3. Defendant Mall of America is a shopping mall and entertainment complex located

in Bloomington, Minnesota. It is the largest shopping mall in the United States with more than

520 stores that surround the nation’s largest indoor family amusement park. It is the home to
 27-CV-21-9182
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/27/2021 3:19 PM

many restaurants and attractions including the Sea Life Aquarium, Lego Imagination Center,

Crayola Experience, and a 14-screen movie theatre. It draws more than 40 million visitors per

year and is the most popular tourist attraction in the United States.

4. Defendant Mall of America Company, LLC is a foreign Limited Liability

Company registered under Minn. Stat. § 322C. Its home jurisdiction is Delaware. Its registered

agent is MOAC Mall Holdings LLC, and its registered office address is 2131 Lindau Lane #500,

c/o Mall of America Management, Bloomington, Minnesota 55425—2640. Its Manager is Syd

Ghermezian. On information and belief, Mall of America Company, LLC is a holding company
and parent company of defendant MOAC Mall Holdings LLC.

5. Defendant MOA Holdings I LLC is a foreign Limited Liability Company formed

on August 7, 2014. Its home jurisdiction is Delaware and its registered agent is The Corporation

Trust Company, 1209 Orange Street, Wihnington, DE 19801. On information and belief, MOA

Holdings I LLC is a holding company and parent company of defendant MOAC Mall Holdings

LLC.

6. Defendant MOAC Mall Holdings LLC is a foreign Limited Liability Company

registered under Minn. Stat. § 322C. Its home jurisdiction is Delaware. Its registered agent is

Triple Five MOA Holdings LLC, and its registered office address is 2131 Lindau Lane #500, e/o

Mall of America Management Office, Bloomington, Minnesota 55425-2640. Its Manager is Syd

Ghermezian. On information and belief, MOAC Mall Holdings LLC is the fee holder of the Mall
of America. It executes leases with tenants and pays all MOA employees. The Mall of America

Security Department is also a department of MOAC Mall Holdings LLC.

 27-CV-21-9182
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/27/2021 3:19 PM

JURISDICTION & VENUE

7. This Court has personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the parties and this

action under Minnesota law.

8. Venue is proper in this district because the causes of action and the events giving

rise to this action, in whole or in part, took place in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Venue is also

proper because the Mall of America is located in Bloomington, Minnesota, and the registered

office address for MOAC Mall Holdings LLC is 2131 Lindau Lane #500, c/o Mall of America

Management Oflice, Bloomington, Minnesota 55425-2640.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
9. This case arises fiom a tragic set of events that took place on April 12, 2019,

when L.H., then five years old, was intentionally thrown from a third-floor balcony at the Mall of

America (“MOA” or “Mall”), suffering critical and life threatening injuries when he struck the

tiled floor below. His assailant was well-known to the Mall, and to the Mall of America Security

Department (“Mall Security”) as a violent and aggressive man with an explosive temperament

who had been banned from the Mall twice before for assaulting Mall patrons, making terroristic

threats, being combative, and criminally damaging property. The assailant never should have

been allowed in the Mall that day; if allowed to enter, he should have been followed by security.
But the Mall failed to take either of these simple, necessary precautions, thereby breaching its

duty to provide a safe environment to its guests. As a result, L.H., his mother K.H., and their

entire family were forced to endure horrific, entirely unnecessary, injuries and suffering that will

affect them the rest of their lives.

 27-CV-21-9182
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/27/2021 3:19 PM

A. The Events of Agril 12, 2019

10. On Friday, April 12, 2019, K.H. took her young son L.H. to visit the Mall afier

parent-teacher conferences that morning. A late winter storm had dumped over five inches of
snow on Bloomington, and the metro area was fiigid with blowing snow. The Mall offered a

warm and inviting place indoors to celebrate L.H.’s completion of a school year milestone. They

were joined by one of L.H.’s preschool friends and his friend’s mother.

11. The four of them arrived at the Mall at approximately 9:45 am. They parked on

the west side and entered the Mall through Nordstrom’s department store, then made their way to

the third level. Their destination was the Crayola Experience (“Crayola”), a 60,000 square foot

attraction on the southeast side of the third level that expressly caters to families with young

children.

12. Crayola did not open until 10:00 a.m., so the four waited nearby, in front of the

Rainforest Café next door. Like Crayola, Rainforest Cafe expressly caters to families and kids.

Its attractions include a mechanical alligator that periodically emerges from a hiding place in a

decorative moat surrounded by rocks. L.H. and his friend perched over the moat, watching for

the alligator to climb out. Their mothers stood about an arms’ length distance behind the boys,

chatting.

l3. A man came over and stood next to the boys, then began talking to them. K.H.

initially thought he was part of the maintenance staff, and wondered whether he could tum the

alligator on. She asked, “Are we okay to stand here?” “You’re fine,” he said.

l4. K.H. asked the man whether L.H. and his friend were okay standing where they

were. Again the man said they were “fine.”

 27-CV-21-9182
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/27/2021 3:19 PM

15. The man then grabbed L.H., ran to the edge of the balcony carrying L.H., and

threw L.H. over the third floor railing.

l6. L.H. fell until he struck, arms and head first, against the tile floor nearly 40 feet

below.

17. L.H. suffered massive head trauma. Blood pooled under his head. Bones in his

arms and body were fractured. His skin was lacerated. He stopped breathing.

18. Two random bystanders, Mall visitors who just happened to have medical

training, administered CPR, restoring breathing.

19. L.H.’s injuries that day subsequently required dozens of surgeries, additional

medical procedures and interventions, a stay of over 100 days in the pediatric intensive care unit

at Children’s Hospital, further inpatient rehabilitation at Gillette Children’s Hospital, and

ongoing medical care with further surgeries required, as further detailed below.

20. K.H. was standing about an arm’s length away from her son when the stranger

grabbed him. She watched helplessly when the man threw L.H. over the balcony railing.

21. Distraught, K.H. fi‘antically sprinted to the first level of the Mall, skipping stairs

on the escalator and screaming “Somebody threw my son!” as she ran.

22. . As K.H. reached the bottom level she again screamed, “Where’s my son?!” A

woman pointed. K.H. saw L.H. lying motionless on the tile.

23. She ran to L.H. and instinctively moved to cradle him. Someone commanded

“don’t touch!” and she forced herself to move back and leave him lying there.

24. As a crowd gathered, K.H. began shouting that everyone should pray.

25. Eventually, in response to numerous 911 calls made by tenants and guests who

were in the Mall, paramedics arrived. L.H. was placed on a stretcher and transported by
 27-CV-21-9182
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/27/2021 3:19 PM

ambulance to Children’s Hospital, where the emergency room and trauma team began surgery

almost immediately.

B. The Assailant: Emmanuel Aranda

26. After throwing L.H. from the Mall balcony, the assailant fled. Many Witnesses

saw him running. At least one Mall patron tried to physically stop the assailant, but the assailant

flung this patron into a wall and kept running.

27. The assailant successfully eluded capture within the Mall (indeed, it is unclear

whether any attempt to capture him within the Mall was even made, aside from the Mall patron’s

volunteer effort) and made his way to the Mall light rail station, where he boarded a train that

was preparing to depart.

28. The Bloomington police prevented the train fiom leaving. They found the

assailant sitting in one of the train seats and arrested him, identifying him by appearance and

attire reported by Mall witnesses to actions.

his

29. The assailant was Emmanuel Deshawn Aranda (“Aranda”).

30. Aranda confessed to throwing L.H. fiom the Mall balcony. He said he did not

know L.H. and had randomly chosen L.H. to attack.

31. Aranda told police he had come to the Mall looking for someone to kill. He said

he had been coming to the Mall for several years and had made efforts to talk to women in the

Mall, but had been rejected, and this upset him. He said he had also come to the Mall the

previous day, April 11, 2019, with the intention to kill someone.

32. Mall surveillance camera footage shows that Aranda spent well over two hours at

the Mall on April ll, 2019, between the hours of 3:00 and 5:30 p.m. Much of his time that day
was spent on the third level and near the balcony areas.
 27-CV-21-9182
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/27/2021 3:19 PM

33. Aranda’s conduct at the Mall on April 11, 2019 was suspicious and unusual. At

about 3:20 P.M., Mall Security became concerned about Aranda’s behavior and sent a security

officer to speak with him as he stood on a balcony peering over the railing to the ground far

below. Mall Security drafted a dispatch report that described Aranda as: “Male leaning up

against the railing talking to himself.”

34. Despite concerns sufficient enough to send a security officer to speak to Aranda

that day, the security officer spoke with Aranda for less than a minute. And, despite concerns

sufficient enough that the officer continued to observe Aranda for another ten to fifieen minutes,

while he leaned up against the railing and observed people walking by, she never asked his

name. Thus, Mall Security never checked Aranda’s name against its records to discover whether

Aranda had any prior incidents at the Mall.

35. If Mall Security on April 11, 2019, had simply asked Aranda his name and

checked its records for past incidents involving him, the Mall would have been alerted to

Aranda’s history of violent, aggressive, and erratic behavior toward guests in the Mall, including

criminal damage to property and assault, that twice before had prompted the Mall to ban Aranda

from the premises. Mall Security could accordingly have prevented Aranda fiom prowling the

Mall unsupervised.

36. Instead, the Mall did not bother to learn Aranda’s name or identify him as a

threat. The Mall’s security camera footage shows Aranda, on April 11, 2019, traversing the Mall

for more than two hours after he was approached by Mall security for his suspicious and unusual

conduct. Aranda walked the third floor, moved in and out of the Mall entrance to the third floor

parking area, returned to the shopping areas, and repeatedly peered over the third-level balconies

in the very same vicinity where Aranda violently attacked L.H. the next day.
 27-CV-21-9182
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/27/2021 3:19 PM

37. Mall scourity camera footage shows that Aranda was alone at the Mall on April

11, 2019 and carn'ed no shopping bags, merchandise, or related items to indicate he was

shopping.

38. Mall security camera footage shows that Aranda returned to the Mall the next day,

April 12, 2019, at 9:42 a.m., before the shops were set to open. A few minutes before 10:00

a.m., Aranda removed his jacket and deliberately tucked it on the'floor next to the third-level

balcony near Nordstrom’s. Mall Security was alert enough to collect the jacket within minutes

of it being abandoned. The jacket was brought to guest services. Although the jacket contained

Aranda’s identifiCation, Mall Security did not connect the jacket with the suspicious individual

fiom the previous day until alter Aranda attacked L.H.

39. Instead, Mall Security allowed Aranda to again proceed to the third level and

spend approximately 30 minutes loitering suspiciously there, peering over the balconies, and

standing near the Rainforest Café. He prowled the third floor unconstrained until he snatched

L.H. and threw him over the balcony railing.

40. At one point, another mother with several young children was pushing a stroller

near the Rainforest Café, and she noticed Aranda repeatedly looking at them. When he walked

toward them, she became suspicious, pulled her children close to her, and moved away from

him, toward Crayola. She then turned back to see if Aranda was following them and saw Aranda
throw L.H. over the ledge and run away. Aranda’s behavior was suspicious enough that an

ordinary person was able to detect something was wrong, and yet the Mall’s professional

security department tasked with detecting such behavior and protecting Mall patrons fiom assault

failed to do so.
 27-CV-21-9182
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/27/2021 3:19 PM

41. Aranda entered a guilty plea to criminal charges on June 3, 2019 and was

convicted of Attempted First Degree Premeditated Murder. On information and belief, he is

currently serving his sentence at the state’s Correctional Facility in St. Cloud, Minnesota.

C. Aranda Was a Known Securig Threat

42. Long before his attack on L.H., Aranda was known to the Mall as a threat to Mall

patrons. Mall Security records show that Aranda was violent, combative, and resisted the police,

and that he had previously been banned from the Mall on two separate occasions.

43. The first ban occurred on July 4, 2015. Mall records show that Aranda matched

the description of a man throwing things off the upper level of the Mall on that day, and that he

destroyed merchandise in two separate stores. On that day, Aranda was arrested for Felony

Damage to Property and Gross Misdemeanor Obstruction at the Mall. The police report describes

him as combative and uncooperative, and he was further charged with resisting arrest after

fighting the police the entire way to the police substation. Aranda was issued a Trespass Notice

and banned from the Mall and any of its adjoining properties for a period of one year, until July

4, 2016.

44. While this first one-year ban was still in effect, Aranda returned to the Mall. It is

not known how many times he returned while the first ban was in effect. On information and

belief, Mall Security does not have any effective way to monitor whether a person who has been

banned has reentered the Mall. What is known is that on October 25, 2015 — less than four

months after Aranda was first banned — Mall Security responded to a major disturbance in the

Twin Cities Grill. There, Aranda was threatening guests, throwing drinking glasses (one of

which shattered on a guest), throwing water in people’s faces, and yelling Obscenities. Aranda
 27-CV-21-9182
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/27/2021 3:19 PM

also took a fighting stance with a restaurant manager. He removed his jacket, dropped his

backpack, made fists with his hand, and said, “I’m gonna break your fucking face open.” It wok

several officers to secure and control Aranda by putting him in handcuffs.

45. As a result of his conduct at the Mall on October 25, 2015, Aranda was charged

with Criminal Trespass, Fighting, Terroristic Threats, Disorderly Conduct, 2nd Degree Assault,

and Criminal Damage to Property. He was issued a second Trespass Notice and banned from the

MOA or any of its adjoining properties for a period of one year — i.e., until October 25, 2016.

Thus, despite Aranda’s two incidents of violent criminal conduct at the Mall within the space of

four months, the Mall’s only response to Aranda’s blatant violation of its first ban was to extend

the ban by less than four months.

46. It is not known how many times Aranda returned to the Mall while his second ban

was in effect. On information and belief, Mall Security has no systematic method in place for

enforcing a ban on any particular individual, or preventing banned individuals fiom returning to

the Mall, even banned individuals known to be violent and dangerous to Mall patrons.

47. The Mall’s Trespass form used to ban individuals suggests that the Mall would

never ban a dangerous individual fiom the Mall for more than a year under any circumstances,

no matter what the individual did. Rather, the form provides only two options: a ban of six

months, or a ban of one year.

48. As noted, Aranda spent several hours at the Mall in the afternoon of April 1 1,

2019, the day before he attacked L.H. Aranda’s conduct, caught on the Mall’s security camera,

was concerning enough that Mall Security was dispatched to talk with Aranda as he stood

overlooking a third-level balcony. But Mall Security never even asked his name.

1.0
 27-CV-21-9182
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/27/2021 3:19 PM

49. The officer dispatched to talk to Aranda on April 11, 2019, as he stood peering

over the third-level balcony railing, initially reported this as a “routine” call for “guest assis .”

The officer later reported that she witnessed Aranda “repeatedly look[] down over the ledge” and

that she continued to watch him “for another ten to fifteen minutes after speaking with him” that

day. Nonetheless, Mall Security made no further interventions.

50. Instead, Aranda remained in the Mall for over two hours, where the Mall’s own

security cameras showed him walk aimlessly around the third floor, practice moving through the

skyway to the West side parking lot a number of times, reenter the Mall, and repeatedly look

over the third-level balcony railings, all the while never carrying a bag, beverage, merchandise,

or any other items to indicate he was shopping. Aranda was planning a homicide, as he later

confessed to the police, and his conduct on April 11, 2019 should have raised concerns and

prompted Mall Security to take measures that would have prevented Aranda fiom attacking L.H.

on Apn'l 12, 2019.

D. Aranda’s Criminal Histog

51. Aranda had a significant history of violent criminal activity in both Hennepin

County and Chicago, Illinois.

52. In addition to the criminal charges relating to his conduct at Mall, Aranda in 2015

pleaded guilty in Hennepin COunty to First Degree Damage to Property, after he caused $5,000

of damage to computers at a public library in response to reading something on Facebook that

made him angry. At the time of the library incident he was already wanted on a misdemeanor

warrant for Fleeing and Intentional Damage to Property, and a gross misdemeanor warrant for

Obstruction and Intentional Damage to Property.

11
 27-CV-21-9182
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/27/2021 3:19 PM

53. Aranda also had an Illinois warrant for his arrest oh charges of aggravated assault,

assault with a deadly weapon, thefi and battery. Illinois records show that Aranda engaged in

violent conduct toward other people at two Chicago-area restaurants and a bus terminal,

variously striking a restaurant manager with a telephone; striking a customer with a plate and

chasing the customer while holding a 5-inch knife; threatening another restaurant manager with a
I

knife; and becoming sufficiently unruly with bus station security that he was arrested for

criminal trespass. 0n information and belief, these criminal offenses were known to MOA

Security and were kept as part of Aranda’s MOA Security file.

E. Securig at the Mall of America.

54. The Mall’s website touts its security department as being highly trained, holding

to the “highest standards.” As it states, “Mall of America Security holds itself to the highest

standards and is a nationally recognized department staffed with over 175 highly trained

perSonnel.” It goes on:

“We are a unique property and we protect it as Such. We pride ourselves on our

high caliber officers, training and forward thinking attitude. We take a holistic

approach with our industry leading programs and practices which include bike

patrols, K9 units, special operations plain clothes officers, a state-of-the art dispatch

center, Parental Escort Policy, crisis planning, and lockdown drills.”

(httpszllwww.mallofamerica.eom/security, current as of 9/25/2020)

55. The Mall’s website informs its guests that it “also has strong relationships with

federal, state and local law enforcement including an on-side dedicated police unit.” On

information and belief, this on-site dedicated police unit is staffed and operated by the

Bloomington Police Department.

12
 27-CV-21-9182
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/27/2021 3:19 PM

56. The Mall leads its patrons to believe that it will protect them while they are on its

premises, as an inducement to cause more people to visit the Mall and spend money there, for the.

Mall’s financial benefit.

57. The Mall’s security apparatus includes an extensive network of live video

cameras. On information and belief, the cameras can be monitored, rotated, and zoomed in and

out from a control center in the Mall’s security department. Mall security can and does use the

cameras to search for suspicious individuals who may pose a threat to other Mall visitors.

58. The Mall lacks any effective means to screen dangerous or banned individuals

fiom entering the Mall. 0n information and belief, the Mall makes no systematic effort to even

attempt to prevent dangerous 0r banned individuals from entering the Mall.

5 9. The Mall does not ensure that security officers are distributed throughout the

entire premises, to deter violence and quickly respond to suspicious or aggressive individuals.

On information and belief, there were no security officers in the vicinity of the Rainforest Café

or Crayola Experience on the morning that L.H. was violently assaulted.

F. L.H.’s Injuries and Medical Interventions Due to the Fall.

60. L.H. suffered extensive and, in some cases permanent, injuries to his brain, face,

arms, legs, and internal organs when he struck the floor of the Mall three stories below the

Raim‘orest Café and Crayola. Some of these injuries have healed or continue to heal. Others have

permanently damaged his body.

61. L.H. required countless medical procedures and interventions to preserve his life

and repair, among other things, bone damage (broken bones in arms, leg, pelvis, head), organ

damage (removal of spleen, laceration of kidney and liver, brain trauma), and skin damage

13
 27-CV-21-9182
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/27/2021 3:19 PM

(trauma and/or lacerations on face, forehead, inside of mouth, hands, as well as multiple surgical

incisions). He spent more than three months in pediatric intensive care at Children’s Hospital,

followed by several weeks at Gillette’s. To date, the Cost of these surgeries, scans, therapies,

tests, examinations, hospital stays, and other medical treatments has exceeded $1.75 million as

evidenced by medical records exceeding 1,000 pages. L.H. will continue to require follow-up

treatments for years to come, including occupational and physical therapies and provisions for

his life care.

62. The medical treatments L.H. required as a result of his injuries sustained at the

Mall included, among others:

a. Intubation upon admission to Children’s Hospital ER (April 12, 2019);

extubated on April 24, 2019

Multiple CT scans of the head, brain, and much of the body to assess

damage resulting from the fall

Multiple MRIs to assess damage to the brain

Exploratory laparotomy with splenectomy (April 12, 2019)

Repair of 4cm forehead laceration, simple repair of intranasal laceration,

repair of upper lip laceration (April 12, 2019)

Closed reduction and splinting of mid-femur fracture, closed reduction and

percutaneous pinning of right elbow fi'acture, closed treatment of ulnar

shaft fracture, open reduction with percutaneous fixation of left elbow

fiacture, closed reduction and splinting of left both—bone forearm fiacture,

closed treatment of pelvis fiacture (April 12, 2019)

14
 27-CV-21-9182
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/27/2021 3:19 PM

. Placement of ventricular drainage catheter and intracranial pressure

Inonfiorcfipfi112,2019)

. Open reduction and internal fixation of left midface fiactures and closed

reduction of nasal bone fracture (April 18, 2019)

Fabrication of right femur fiacture Spica orthosis with re—application of

fightfinnurfiacnuetnnunalspfintoApdl30,2019)

Insertion of chest tube and NJ tube placement (April 30, 2019)

. Exploratory right thoracoscopy followed by right thoracotomy with

pleurectomy and ligation of chylous leak; placement of right chest tube

(hday 15,2019)

Abdominal drain placed (May 16, 2019)

. MRI guided lymphoscintigraphy (June 10, 2019)

. Laparoscopy converted to laparotomy with lysis of adhesions and ligation

of peripancreatic chyle leak (June 12, 2019)

. Insertion of chest tube and placement of suture around existing chest tube

Gune15,2019)

. Left tube thoracostomy, exploratory laparotomy with repair of gastric

perforation (June 15, 2019)

. Drainage of RUQ fluid with accordion drain placement (June 21, 2019)

Right heart catheterization, angiography, stent placement (June 21, 2019)

Intraoperative debridement of abdominal wound, plastic surgery,

placement of stem cell dressing and replacement of wound VAC (July 22,

2019)

15
 27-CV-21-9182
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/27/2021 3:19 PM

t. Multiple, and continuing, plastic surgeries to repair various skin locations

affected by scarring as a result of both the fall and the subsequent medical

procedures

63. L.H. has been permanently damaged in numerous ways, including significant

softening/loss of brain tissue on both sides of his brain as evidenced by clinical and MRI findings

of encephalomalacia. His behavior and personality have altered since he sustained his injuries.

He exhibits confiision about day to day activities. His memory, adaptive skills, and academic

performance have deteriorated. These are profound changes caused by the severe head injury he

sustained at the Mall of America on April 12, 2019.

COUNT I

(Negligence — L.H.)

64. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fiJlly set forth in this
Count.

65. Defendants owed L.H. a duty to protect him according the highest standards of

care as represented to the public on the Mall’s website. Because the Mall of America voluntarily

hires a security force that holds itself out to “the highest standards,” including its strong

relationships with federal, state, and local law enforcement and an on-site dedicated police unit,

and because L.H. through his guardians, including K.H., relied on these protections when

visiting the Mall, the Mall voluntarily assumed a duty to protect L.H. and prevent him fiom

being attacked while on the Mall’s premises. The Mall owed L.H. a duty of utmost care.

66. Defendants also owe a duty to protect the Mall’s guests against reasonably

foreseeable criminal activity. In the circumstances, including the Mall’s knowledge of Aranda’s

16
 27-CV-21-9182
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/27/2021 3:19 PM

violent conduct toward guests and tenants while on the premises, Aranda’s criminal conduct

toward L.H. on April 12, 2019 was reasonably foreseeable and preventable.

67. Defendants breached their duties by allowing Aranda to throw L.H. over the third-

floor balcony at the Mall. In view of his criminal history and prior Violent conduct at the Mall,

and his conduct the previous day, Defendants should have prevented Aranda from entering the

Mall on April 12, 2019. At a minimum, Defendants should have prevented Aranda, once on the

premises, fiom prowling the Mall fieely without a Mall security officer following him closely;

posted Mall security officers at regular intervals throughout the Mall to deter criminal attacks,

particularly in areas where family and children are known to gather; identified Aranda after the

Mall security officer spoke with him on April 11, 2019 and warned him against misconduct on

Mall premises; pursued and warned Aranda after recovering his possessions suspiciously

abandoned in the Mall on April 12, 2019; and observed Aranda’s suspicious behavior on April

12, 2019 and sent a Mall security officer to intervene. of these measures, a_11_ of which

were necessary in the exercise of the highest standard of care, as well as the lower standard of

reasonable care, would have prevented Aranda’s attack on L.H.

68. Defendants breached their duties and were clearly negligent in allowing L.H. to

be thrown over the third-floor balcony on April 12, 2019.

69. As a result of Aranda throwing L.H. over the third-floor balcony at the Mall, L.H.

suffered extensive injuries --

physical, mental, emotional, and otherwiSe. These injuries will

forever alter his life and well being. His future employment prospects and quality of life have

been significantly diminished. He will require future medical care on an ongoing basis.

70. Defendants are liable to L.H. for the damages he has sustained.

l7
 27-CV-21-9182
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/27/2021 3:19 PM

COUNT II

(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress — KH.)

71. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully Set forth in this

Count.

72. Defendants were negligent as set forth in Count I above.

73. Defendants’ negligence in allowing Aranda to throw L.H. over the third-floor

balcony at the Mall inflicted severe emotional distress upon K.H., who was forced to watch a

stranger attempt to kill her son in a sudden and violent way in her close presence.

74. At the time of Aranda’s attack, K.H. was in close proximity to L.H. on the third

floor of the Mall. She was only an arm’s length away. Aranda could easily have attacked K.H. in

the same way that he attacked L.H.

75. K.H. reasonably feared for her own safety as a result of Aranda’s violent attack on

L.H. Aranda, or someone else at the Mall, could have attacked K.H. in the same way that

Aranda attacked L.H.

76.. K.H. has suffered severe emotional distress as a result of watching a stranger

violently attempt to kill her five-year—old son in her presence. The emotional distress has

manifested itself in a variety of physical symptoms including extensive skin rash, severe brain

fog and inability to focus, lack of mental clarity, inability to sleep, flashbacks to the horrors of

what happened to her child, and trouble attending to the most ordinary life tasks.

77. In addition to her physical symptoms, K.H. endured the anguish and distress of

witnessing every procedure and intervention done for her five-year old son. She basically took

up residence at Children’s Hospital during L.H.’s lengthy stay, not leaving his side except as

absolutely necessary, seeing very little of her family or her other young children until many

18
 27-CV-21-9182
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/27/2021 3:19 PM

weeks had passed. Her foeus was entirely on her injured son. K.H. is currently seeing a

counSelor for help in dealing with such a traumatic life experience.

78. Defendants are liable to K.H. for the damages she has sustained.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

l. Granting judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants on both Counts of

their Complaint;

2. Awarding mOnetary damages sufficient to cover L.H.’s actual medical expenses

incurred to treat his injuries on and after April 12, 2019, in an amount in excess of $50,000;

3. Awarding monetary damages sufficient to cover L.H.’s future medical expenses

attributable to Defendants’ negligence, in an amount to be determined at trial;

4. Awarding damages to L.H. for the pain and suffering he has endured, and will

endure, as a result of Defendants’ negligence, in an amount to be determined at trial;

5. Awarding damages to L.H. for the loss of future income he will receive as a result

of Defendants’ negligence, in an amount to be determined at trial;

6. Awarding damages to K.H. for mental anguish and distress, in an amount to be

determined at trial, in an amount in excess of $50,000;

7. Awarding damages to K.H. to cover her own medical expenses attributable to her

severe emotional distress, in an amount to be determined at trial;

8. Awarding damages to K.H. to cover expenses she incurred to be with L.H. during

his lengthy stay in the hospital, away fiom her family and other children, in an amount to be

determined at trial;

l9
 27-CV-21-9182
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/27/2021 3:19 PM

9. Awarding reasonable costs incurred by the Plaintiffs in bringing this action, as

provided by law, in amounts to be approved by the Court;

10. Awarding such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable in the

circumstances.

Dated: April 23, 2021 BRIOL & BENSON, PLLC

By:
/ Mark J.Briol(1\/1N‘#‘0126731)
Scott A. Benson (MN #0198419)
Vicki J. Bitner (MN #0213998)
Mary Cate Cicero (MN #0396423)
3700 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Phone: (612) 756-7777
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for the Plaintifis

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned hereby acknowledges that sanctions may be imposed under

Minn. Stat. § 549.211.

Scott A. Benson

20