IN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA Craig DeWitt and Dawn DeWitt, as Case No. surviving parents of Elijah DeWitt and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Elijah DeWitt, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. Simon Property Group LP, Sugarloaf Complaint for Damages Mills Limited Partnership, Universal Protection Service, LLC, Jason Choy, Dave & Buster’s of Georgia, LLC, and John Does 1-5, Defendants. Plaintiffs, Craig DeWitt and Dawn DeWitt, as surviving parents of Elijah DeWitt and as, Co-Administrators of the Estate of Elijah DeWitt file this Complaint to recover for the wrongful death of their son, Elijah Daniel DeWitt, and for the injuries he suffered before his death. As a consequence of Defendants’ negligence, Elijah DeWitt was shot and Killed (the “Shooting”) in the parking lot outside of Dave & Buster’ at Sugarloaf Mills mall (the “Premises”) on October 5, 2022. In support of their Complaint, Plaintiffs state as follows: Parties, Jurisdiction, And Venue Plaintifis are citizens of the State of Georgia, Plaintiffs are the surviving parents of Elijah DeWitt. Elijah DeWitt was shot and killed on October 5, 2022 and died without children. As surviving parents of Elijah DeWitt, Plaintiffs have the right to bring a wrongful aR eND death claim and recover for the full value of Elijah DeWitt’ life, Plaintiffs are the anticipated Co-Administrators of the Estate of Elijah DeWitt? aa ‘As Co-Administrators of the Estate of Elijah DeWitt, Plaintiffs have the right to bring claims on behalf of the Estate and recover for all damages of the Estate, including the pre-death pain and suffering experienced by Elijah. "Plaintiffs have petitioned the Probate Court of Jackson County, Georgia and will amend their complaint ‘upon appointment.10. i. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Defendant Simon Property Group LP is a foreign limited partnership authorized to transact business in the State of Georgia. Atall times material hereto, Defendant Simon Property Group, LP, along with other Defendants owned, occupied, operated, controlled, and/or managed Sugarloaf Mills mall, located at 5900 Sugarloaf Parkway, Lawrenceville, Georgia, 30043, Service of process can be perfected upon Defendant Simon Property Group, LP by serving its registered agent for service of process, CT Corporation System, 289 S, Culver St., Lawrenceville, Georgia 30046, Defendant Simon Property Group LP has been properly served with process in this action. Defendant Simon Property Group LPis subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant Sugarloaf Mills Limited Partnershipis a foreign limited partnership authorized to transact business in the State of Georgia. Atall times material hereto, Defendant Sugarloaf Mills Limited Partnership along with other Defendants owned, occupied, operated, controlled, and/or managed Sugarloaf Mills, located at 5900 Sugarloaf Parkway, Lawrenceville, Georgia 30043. Service of process can be perfected upon Defendant Sugarloaf Mills Limited Partnership by serving it System, 289 S. Culver St., Lawrenceville, Georgia 30046. Defendant Sugarloaf Mills Limited Partnership has been properly served with registered agent for service of process, CT Corporation process in this action. Defendant Sugarloaf Mills Limited Partnership is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant Universal Protection Service LLC is a foreign limited liability company authorized to transact business in the State of Georgia. At all times material hereto, Defendant Universal Protection Service LLC provided security services at Sugarloaf Mills, its premises and its approaches, on behalf of the ‘owners and occupiers and for the benefit of the invitees of Sugarloaf Mills. Defendant Universal Protection Service can be served with process through its registered agent for service of process, Corporation Service Company, 2 Sun Court, Suite 400, Peachtree Comers, Georgia, 30092. Defendant Universal Protection Service has been properly served with process in21. 22. 23. 24, 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. this action. Defendant Universal Protection Service is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant Jason Choy is a resident of the State of Georgia and may be served with process at his usual place of abode: 727 Hunt Station Drive, Lawrenceville, Georgia, 30044, Atall times material hereto, Defendant Choy was the security director for Sugarloaf Mills and was responsible for managing, maintaining, supervising, and directing security measures at the property on behalf of the owners and occupiers and for the benefit of the invitees of Sugarloaf Mills. Defendant Choy has been properly served with process in this action. Defendant Choy is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant Dave & Buster’s of Georgia, LLC is a domestic limited liability company authorized to transact conduct business in the State of Georgia. Acall times material hereto, Defendant Dave & Buster's owned, occupied, operated, controlled, and/or managed a restaurant and arcade located in Sugarloaf Mills mall at 5900 Sugarloaf Parkway, Suite 441, Lawrenceville, Georgia, 30043. Defendant Dave & Buster’s can be served with process through its registered agent for service of process, Capitol Corporate Services, Inc., 3675 Crestwood Parkway, NW, Suite 350, Duluth, Georgia, 30096. Defendant Dave & Buster’s has been properly served with process in this action. Defendant Dave & Buster’ is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court, John Does 1-5 are additional owners, partners of owners, and/or employees of the owners, management companies, partners of management companies, and/or employees of management companies, managers, partners of managers, and/or employees of the managers, security companies, partners of security companies, and/or employees of the security companies and/or security personnel of the Premises. Defendants John Does 1-5 will be named and served with the Summons and Complaint if and once their identities are known, Venue is proper in Gwinnett County under 0.C.G.A. § 14-2-510(b)(3) because the cause of action originated in Gwinnett County and Defendants have offices there and transact business there. Defendants’ officers, agents, and employees were involved in the acts and omissions34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39, 41. 42, 43. which give rise to this lawsuit and committed tortious acts and omissions in the State of Georgia with respect to the Premises. Facts Applicable to All Counts Acall relevant times hereto, including October 5, 2022, Elijah DeWitewas an invitee at the Premises. On October 5, 2022, Elijah DeWitt was shot and killed during an attempted armed robbery in the parking lot outside of Dave & Buster’s at the Premises. Acall times, Elijah exercised ordinary care and diligence. Prior to October 5, 2022, there had been numerous reports of criminal and dangerous activity at the Premises and in its immediate surrounding area, including aggravated assaults, robberies, car break-ins, and firearm-related crimes, about which Defendants knew. For that reason, as well as others, dangerous criminal activity at the Premises was reasonably foreseeable to Defendants. Defendants were negligent in multiple ways, including but not limited to failing to satisfy industry standards, internal standards, and negligence per se. Count 1: Failure To Keep The Premises Safe (0.C.G.A. § 51-3-1) Atall relevant times, Defendants owed a duty of care to Elijah to keep the Premises safe from dangerous and criminal acts by third parties on the Premises, Before October 5, 2022, Defendants knew that the Premises was in a high crime area, Defendants knew ofthe dangerous and hazardous conditions existing on the Premises, and that said conditions were likely to result in injuries and/or death to their invitees, including Elijah. Defendants negligently failed to maintain a policy, procedure, or system of investigating, reporting, and warning of the aforementioned criminal activity. Before and on October 5, 2022, Defendants were aware of the risk of crime by third parties against invitees in situations similar to the Shooting. Before and on October 5, 2022, Defendants negligently failed to maintain, inspect, secure, patrol, and manage the Premises, thereby creating an unreasonable risk of injury to its invitees, including Elijah. Defendants had knowledge, both actual and constructive, of the need to properly maintain, secure, inspect, patrol, and manage45. 47. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. the Premises, but failed to exercise ordinary care to do so. Defendants negligently represented to its invitees that the Premises were properly maintained and reasonably safe. Defendants negligently, recklessly, and with conscious indifference to the consequences failed to warn its invitees, including Elijah, of the existence of the aforementioned criminal activity and the likelihood of further criminal attacks. Defendants had actual knowledge of criminal activity existing on and around the Premises prior to the shooting of Elijah, including prior violent crimes on the Premises and in the immediate area. Said prior criminal activity was negligently permitted to exist and remain at the Premises. Defendants negligently failed and refused to correct the circumstances giving rise to the criminal and dangerous activity by third parties. Defendant negligently failed to maintain adequate security devices to permit proper use of the Premises, thereby causing an unreasonable risk of injury to its invitees, including Elijah. Defendants negligently failed to keep the Premises safe and failed to adequately and properly protect Elijah, in breach of its duty of care owed to Elijah. Defendants negligently failed to provide adequate security protecti or security personnel on the Premises. Defendant negligently failed to establish adequate security policies and/or procedures. Defendants breached the duty owed to Elijah by failing to exercise ordinary care to keep the Premises safe. Count 2: Allowing and Maintaining a Nuisance (O.C.GA. § 41-1-1) Defendants negligently failed to remedy the dangerous condition of criminal and dangerous incidents that persisted over a period of time as a continuous and repetitious condition. Defendants had express notice and knowledge of the dangerous condition of criminal and dangerous incidents that persisted over a period of time as a continuous and repetitious condition. Defendants breached the duty owed to Elijah by allowing and maintaining a nuisance.55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 61. 62. 63. Count 3: Voluntary Undertaking Atall relevant times, if Defendants did not owe already owe a duty as set forth in counts 1 or 2, Defendants voluntarily undertook a duty of care to Elijah to keep the Premises safe from dangerous and criminal acts by third parties on the Premises. Either Elijah or someone else was entitled to and did reasonably rely on Defendants to use reasonable care to carry out the voluntary undertaking. Defendants did not use reasonable care to carry out the voluntary undertaking to keep the Premises safe from dangerous and criminal acts by third parties. Count 4: Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision, and Retention Defendants were negligent in hiring, training, supervising, and retaining their employees or contractors working at and responsible for the Premises. Defendants breached their duty of care owed to Plaintiff by their negligence in hiring, training, supervising, and retaining their employees or contractors working at and responsible for the Pret s. Causation Each of the forgoing acts and omissions constitute an independent act of negligence on the part of Defendants and one or more or all above stated acts or omissions were the cause in fact and direct and proximate cause of the injuries and damages to the Plaimtfis. Damages Asa proximate and foreseeable result of the negligence of Defendants, Elijah DeWitt suffered conscious pain and suffering while he lived and said negligence caused his untimely death, Elijah DeWitt’s Estate seeks and is entitled to recover from the Defendants all elements of estate-based damages permitted under Georgia law, including personal injuries, conscious physical and mental pain and suffering, mental anguish, medical expenses and all other injuries and damages endured by Elijah DeWitt before he died as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants. Elijah DeWitt’s wrongful death beneficiaries seek and are entitled to recover from65. 67. the Defendants for the full value of Elijah DeWitt’s life pursuant to O.C.G.A. §51-4-1 et seq. Plaintiffs, for their estate-based injuries and wrongful death injuries, are entitled to an award of punitive damages without limitation or cap because the actions of Defendants and their agents showed an entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences. Plaintiffs are accordingly entitled to recover punitive damages, without limitation or cap, from Defendants, in accordance with the enlightened conscience of an impartial jury. Asa direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiffs seek and are entitled to recover from the Defendants compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by a fair and reasonable jury for all damages suffered, including physical, emotional, and economic injuries. Plaintifis seek and are entitled to all compensatory, special, economic, consequential, general, punitive, and all other damages permissible under Georgia law, including but not limited to: 65.1. Personal injuries; 65.2. All elements of physical and mental pain and suffering; 65.3, Mental anguish, fright, shock, and terror; 65.4. Funeral and burial expenses; 65.5. Future lost wages and lost earning capacity; 65.6. All elements of the full value of Elijah Dewitt’s life; 65.7. Consequential damages to be proven at trial; and 65.8. Punitive damages. Defendants have acted in bad faith, have been stubbornly litigious, or have caused Plaintfis unnecessary trouble and expense. Thus, Plaintiffs, for their estatebased injuries and wrongful death injuries, are entitled to and specially plead recovery of attorney fees and other litigation expenses pursuant to Georgia Code Section 13-6- 11, as determined by the jury. Plaintiffs respectfully request: 67.1. Process issue as provided by law; 67.2. A tial by jury against Defendants; 67.3. Judgment be awarded to Plaintifs and against Defendants; 67.4, Plaintiffs be awarded damages in amounts to be shown at trial;67.5. Plaintiffs be awarded all interest to which they are entitled, including but not limited to demanding prejudgment interest on any amounts that become liquidated at any time; 67.6. Plaintiffs be awarded their attorney fees and other litigation expenses, ‘whether part of Code Section 13-6-11 compensatory damages or as part of any sanetions or penalty, such as Code Section 9-11-68, and 67-7. Plaintiffs have such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. Submitted on March 8, 2023, by: Ge Rafi Law Firm LLC Michael T. Rafi 1776 Peachtree Street NW Georgia Bar No. 127670 Suite 423-South Alexander J. Brown Atlanta, GA 30309 Georgia Bar No. 532112 404-800-9933 470-344-3425 fax mike@rafilawfirm.com brown@rafilawfirm.com BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP Naveen Ramachandrappa Ga. Bar No. 422036 1201 W Peachtree St NW, Ste 3900 Atlanta, GA 30309 404-881-4100 (Tel) 404-881-4111 (Fax) ramachandrappa@bmelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs