16-2023-CA-004149-XXXX-MA Div: CV-A

Filing # 169179584 E-Filed 03/21/2023 01:33:51 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA

MARGARETTE SAMPSON, CASE NO.

as Proposed Personal Representative
of the Estate of THONY ROY,
Deceased,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HAVILAND HOUSE REALTY LLC,

OMNI REALTY LLC, VLA REALTY LLC,
QUATTRO REALTY LLC,
DAVE AND BUSTERS, INC.,
DAVE & BUSTER’S OF FLORIDA, LP,
DAVE AND BUSTER’S MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, INC., JOHN DOE, unknown
security company, AND CORDELL SAMUEL
BENTLEY-RUSSELL

Defendants.
_____________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, Margarette Sampson, as Proposed Personal Representative of the Estate

of Thony Roy, deceased, by and through the undersigned attorney, sues Defendants,

Haviland House Realty LLC, Omni Realty LLC, VLA Realty LLC, Quattro Realty LLC,

Dave & Buster's, Inc., Dave & Buster’s of Florida, LP, Dave & Buster’s Management

Corporation, Inc., John Doe, unknown security company, and Cordell Samuel Bentley-

Russell and alleges as follows:

1. This is an action for damages which exceed $50,000.00 exclusive of

attorney’s fees, interest, and costs.

ACCEPTED: DUVAL COUNTY, JODY PHILLIPS, CLERK, 03/24/2023 02:02:48 PM

 2. Plaintiff, Margarette Sampson, is a natural person residing in Duval County,

Florida and is otherwise sui juris.

3. The current beneficiaries of this action are: Margarette Sampson, surviving

mother.1

4. Plaintiff Margarette Sampson has been nominated as the Personal

Representative of the Estate of her deceased son, THONY ROY, and intends to be

formally appointed by the Probate Division of the Circuit Court, Duval County.

5. At all times material to this action, Defendant, Haviland House Realty LLC,

(hereinafter “Haviland House”), was a foreign for-profit limited liability corporation.

6. At all times material to this action, Defendant, Omni Realty LLC, (hereinafter

“Omni”), was a foreign for-profit limited liability corporation.

7. At all times material to this action, Defendant, VLA Realty LLC, (hereinafter

“VLA”), was a Florida for-profit limited liability corporation.

8. At all times material to this action, Defendant, Quattro Realty LLC,

(hereinafter “Quattro”), was a foreign for-profit limited liability corporation.

9. At all times material to this action, Defendant, Dave & Busters, Inc., was a

Florida for-profit corporation.

10. At all times material to this action, Defendant, Dave & Buster’s of Florida,

LP, was a Florida for-profit corporation.

11. At all times material to this action, Defendant, Dave & Buster’s Management

Corporation, Inc., was a foreign for-profit corporation.

1 Plaintiff is in the process of attempting to locate Thony Roy’s father, also named Thony Roy.
 12. At all times material to this action, Defendant, John Doe, unknown security

company, (hereinafter “John Doe”), was a Florida for-profit corporation.

13. At all times material to this action, Defendant, Cordell Samuel Bentley-

Russell, was and is a natural person residing in Duval County, Florida and is otherwise

sui juris.

14. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Haviland House owned, managed,

dominated and controlled, operated, and/or maintained the property and structures

located at 7025 Salisbury Rd, Jacksonville, FL 32256 Duval County, Florida, open to the

general public, including Plaintiff herein.

15. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Quattro owned, managed,

dominated and controlled, operated, and/or maintained the property and structures,

including Dave & Busters, located at 7025 Salisbury Rd, Jacksonville, FL 32256 Duval

County, Florida, open to the general public, including Plaintiff herein.

16. At all times material hereto, Defendant, VLA owned, managed, dominated

and controlled, operated, and/or maintained the property and structures, including Dave

& Busters, located at 7025 Salisbury Rd, Jacksonville, FL 32256 Duval County, Florida,

open to the general public, including Plaintiff herein.

17. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Omni owned, managed, dominated

and controlled, operated, and/or maintained the property and structures, including Dave

& Busters, located at 7025 Salisbury Rd, Jacksonville, FL 32256 Duval County, Florida,

open to the general public, including Plaintiff herein.

18. On or about January 21, 2023, Thony Roy was a business invitee and/or

invited licensee at Dave & Buster's Jacksonville located at 7025 Salisbury Rd,
Jacksonville, FL 32256 Duval County, Florida (hereinafter “Dave & Busters”) where he

worked.

19. At all times material to this action, Defendants Haviland House, Omni, VLA,

and Quattro (hereinafter “Corporate Defendants”) owed a non-delegable duty to Plaintiff

to exercise reasonable care for his safety.

20. On the above-mentioned date and place, decedent Thony Roy, was

assaulted by a third-party attacker while he was lawfully on the premises owned by the

Corporate Defendants, resulting in his death.

21. Venue is proper as the cause of action accrued in Duval County, Florida.

COUNT ONE: NEGLIGENCE-WRONGFUL DEATH ACT-HAVILAND HOUSE

Plaintiff, Margarette Sampson, sues Haviland House. and alleges:

22. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19, above.

23. At said time and place, Defendant owed a non-delegable duty to its invitees

and the public to exercise reasonable and ordinary care to maintain the premises located

at 7025 Salisbury Rd, Jacksonville, FL 32256 Duval County, Florida including buildings

and structures thereon, in a condition reasonably safe for use by its invitees, tenants, and

the public.

24. In particular, Defendant had a duty to take such precautions as were

reasonably necessary to protect its tenants, invitees, invited licensees and the public,

including Thony Roy, from reasonably foreseeable criminal attacks.

25. At all material times, Defendant through its agents and/or employees, knew,

or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, the premises was in a high

crime area. Specifically, numerous violent criminal acts occurred in said area, and said

criminal acts were reasonably likely to be perpetrated on tenants, invitees, and the public
unless Defendant took appropriate measures to provide reasonable security for such

individuals.

26. At all material times, Defendant through its agents and/or employees,

knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that prior to January 21,

2023, numerous violent criminal acts occurred on or around Dave & Busters.

27. On or about January 21, 2023, Defendant, its agents, and/or employees

were negligent and breached their duty of reasonable care for the safety and protection

of Thony Roy in a variety of ways including but not limited to the following:

a. Failing to provide adequate security for its tenants, invitees, and the
public, including Thony Roy;

b. Failing to police, patrol, guard, deter, and/or otherwise provide

adequate protection for its tenants, invitees, and the public, when
Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have
known, of reasonably foreseeable third party criminal acts;

c. Failing to have sufficient number of guards in visible areas to deter

crime, thereby protecting its tenants, invitees, and the public,
including Thony Roy, from foreseeable criminal acts;

d. Failing to have an adequate number of security guards to protect its

tenants, invitees, and the public, include Thony Roy;

e. Failing to implement adequate security policies, measures, and/or

procedures necessary to protect Thony Roy, and other tenants,
invitees, and the public, from foreseeable criminal acts;

f. Failing to hire and/or retain competent security guards to protect its

tenants, invitees, and the public, including Thony Roy; and

g. Failing to provide an overall security plan that met known industry

standards and customs fit for safety in the community.
 23. Defendant through its agents and/or employees, negligently failed to devise

and procedures governing the inspection, supervision, and/or security of the area where

the subject incident occurred, or in the alternative;

a. Defendant through its agents and/or employees, devised procedures

governing the inspection, supervision, and/or security of the area
where the subject incident occurred; however, Defendant negligently
and carelessly failed to implement said procedures; or in the
alternative;

b. Defendant through its agents and/or employees, devised procedures

governing the inspection, supervision, and/or security of the area
where the subject incident occurred; however, Defendant
implemented the same in a careless and negligent manner.

24. At all material times, Defendant through its agents and/or employees,

negligently failed to hire persons, employees, and/or agents reasonably suited to provide,

implement, and maintain adequate security measures to ensure the safety of its tenants,

invitees, and the public, including the common area of the apartment where the subject

incident occurred.

25. Defendant through its agents and/or employees created and/or allowed said

dangerous conditions on the premises. Further Defendant failed to warn its tenants,

invitees, and the public, including Thony Roy, of the existence of said dangerous

conditions; or in the alternative, allowed said dangerous conditions to exist for a length of

time sufficient in which a reasonable inspection would have disclosed the same.

26. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s negligence, Thony Roy

was beat to death by a third party criminal attacker.

27. As a further direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s negligence,

Plaintiff claims the following recoverable damages pursuant to the Florida Wrongful Death

Act:
 a. On behalf of the Estate, a loss of net accumulations and earnings
beyond his death in addition to funeral expenses resultant from his
death;

b. On behalf of the survivors, a loss of support and services from the

date of death, with interest and future loss of support and services
from the date of death, reduced to present value. In addition, as the
decedent’s mother, damages for mental pain and anguish from the
date of his death and into the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margarette Sampson, as Proposed Personal

Representative of the Estate of Thony Roy, demands a trial by jury and a judgment

against Defendant for an amount within jurisdictional limits of this court, to-wit: More than

$50,000.00 and for such other relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

COUNT TWO: NEGLIGENCE-WRONGFUL DEATH ACT-OMNI

Plaintiff, Margarette Sampson, sues Omni and alleges:

28. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19, above.

29. At said time and place, Defendant owed a non-delegable duty to its invitees

and the public to exercise reasonable and ordinary care to maintain the premises located

at 7025 Salisbury Rd, Jacksonville, FL 32256 Duval County, Florida including buildings

and structures thereon, in a condition reasonably safe for use by its invitees, tenants, and

the public.

30. In particular, Defendant had a duty to take such precautions as were

reasonably necessary to protect its tenants, invitees, invited licensees and the public,

including Thony Roy, from reasonably foreseeable criminal attacks.

31. At all material times, Defendant through its agents and/or employees, knew,

or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, the premises was in a high

crime area. Specifically, numerous violent criminal acts occurred in said area, and said
criminal acts were reasonably likely to be perpetrated on tenants, invitees, and the public

unless Defendant took appropriate measures to provide reasonable security for such

individuals.

32. At all material times, Defendant through its agents and/or employees,

knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that prior to January 21,

2023, numerous violent criminal acts occurred on or around Dave & Busters.

33. On or about January 21, 2023, Defendant, its agents, and/or employees

were negligent and breached their duty of reasonable care for the safety and protection

of Thony Roy in a variety of ways including but not limited to the following:

a. Failing to provide adequate security for its tenants, invitees, and the
public, including Thony Roy;

b. Failing to police, patrol, guard, deter, and/or otherwise provide adequate

protection for its tenants, invitees, and the public, when Defendant knew,
or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of reasonably
foreseeable third party criminal acts;

c. Failing to have sufficient number of guards in visible areas to deter

crime, thereby protecting its tenants, invitees, and the public, including
Thony Roy, from foreseeable criminal acts;

d. Failing to have an adequate number of security guards to protect its

tenants, invitees, and the public, include Thony Roy;

e. Failing to implement adequate security policies, measures, and/or

procedures necessary to protect Thony Roy, and other tenants, invitees,
and the public, from foreseeable criminal acts;

f. Failing to hire and/or retain competent security guards to protect its

tenants, invitees, and the public, including Thony Roy; and

g. Failing to provide an overall security plan that met known industry

standards and customs fit for safety in the community.
 28. Defendant through its agents and/or employees, negligently failed to devise

and procedures governing the inspection, supervision, and/or security of the area where

the subject incident occurred, or in the alternative;

a. Defendant through its agents and/or employees, devised procedures

governing the inspection, supervision, and/or security of the area
where the subject incident occurred; however, Defendant negligently
and carelessly failed to implement said procedures; or in the
alternative;

b. Defendant through its agents and/or employees, devised procedures

governing the inspection, supervision, and/or security of the area
where the subject incident occurred; however, Defendant
implemented the same in a careless and negligent manner.

29. At all material times, Defendant through its agents and/or employees,

negligently failed to hire persons, employees, and/or agents reasonably suited to provide,

implement, and maintain adequate security measures to ensure the safety of its tenants,

invitees, and the public, including the common area of the apartment where the subject

incident occurred.

30. Defendant through its agents and/or employees created and/or allowed said

dangerous conditions on the premises. Further Defendant failed to warn its tenants,

invitees, and the public, including Thony Roy, of the existence of said dangerous

conditions; or in the alternative, allowed said dangerous conditions to exist for a length of

time sufficient in which a reasonable inspection would have disclosed the same.

31. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s negligence, Thony Roy

was beat to death by a third party criminal attacker.

32. As a further direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s negligence,

Plaintiff claims the following recoverable damages pursuant to the Florida Wrongful Death

Act:
 a. On behalf of the Estate, a loss of net accumulations and earnings
beyond his death in addition to funeral expenses resultant from his
death;

b. On behalf of the survivors, a loss of support and services from the

date of death, with interest and future loss of support and services
from the date of death, reduced to present value. In addition, as the
decedent’s mother, damages for mental pain and anguish from the
date of his death and into the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margarette Sampson, as Proposed Personal

Representative of the Estate of Thony Roy, demands a trial by jury and a judgment

against Defendant for an amount within jurisdictional limits of this court, to-wit: More than

$50,000.00 and for such other relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

COUNT THREE: NEGLIGENCE-WRONGFUL DEATH ACT-VLA

Plaintiff, Margarette Sampson, sues VLA and alleges:

33. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19, above.

34. At said time and place, Defendant owed a non-delegable duty to its invitees

and the public to exercise reasonable and ordinary care to maintain the premises located

at 7025 Salisbury Rd, Jacksonville, FL 32256 Duval County, Florida including buildings

and structures thereon, in a condition reasonably safe for use by its invitees, tenants, and

the public.

35. In particular, Defendant had a duty to take such precautions as were

reasonably necessary to protect its tenants, invitees, invited licensees and the public,

including Thony Roy, from reasonably foreseeable criminal attacks.

36. At all material times, Defendant through its agents and/or employees, knew,

or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, the premises was in a high

crime area. Specifically, numerous violent criminal acts occurred in said area, and said
criminal acts were reasonably likely to be perpetrated on tenants, invitees, and the public

unless Defendant took appropriate measures to provide reasonable security for such

individuals.

37. At all material times, Defendant through its agents and/or employees,

knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that prior to January 21,

2023, numerous violent criminal acts occurred on or around Dave & Busters.

38. On or about January 21, 2023, Defendant, its agents, and/or employees

were negligent and breached their duty of reasonable care for the safety and protection

of Thony Roy in a variety of ways including but not limited to the following:

a. Failing to provide adequate security for its tenants, invitees, and the
public, including Thony Roy;

b. Failing to police, patrol, guard, deter, and/or otherwise provide adequate

protection for its tenants, invitees, and the public, when Defendant knew,
or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of reasonably
foreseeable third party criminal acts;

c. Failing to have sufficient number of guards in visible areas to deter

crime, thereby protecting its tenants, invitees, and the public, including
Thony Roy, from foreseeable criminal acts;

d. Failing to have an adequate number of security guards to protect its

tenants, invitees, and the public, include Thony Roy;

e. Failing to implement adequate security policies, measures, and/or

procedures necessary to protect Thony Roy, and other tenants, invitees,
and the public, from foreseeable criminal acts;

f. Failing to hire and/or retain competent security guards to protect its

tenants, invitees, and the public, including Thony Roy; and

g. Failing to provide an overall security plan that met known industry

standards and customs fit for safety in the community.
 33. Defendant through its agents and/or employees, negligently failed to devise

and procedures governing the inspection, supervision, and/or security of the area where

the subject incident occurred, or in the alternative;

a. Defendant through its agents and/or employees, devised procedures

governing the inspection, supervision, and/or security of the area
where the subject incident occurred; however, Defendant negligently
and carelessly failed to implement said procedures; or in the
alternative;

b. Defendant through its agents and/or employees, devised procedures

governing the inspection, supervision, and/or security of the area
where the subject incident occurred; however, Defendant
implemented the same in a careless and negligent manner.

34. At all material times, Defendant through its agents and/or employees,

negligently failed to hire persons, employees, and/or agents reasonably suited to provide,

implement, and maintain adequate security measures to ensure the safety of its tenants,

invitees, and the public, including the common area of the apartment where the subject

incident occurred.

35. Defendant through its agents and/or employees created and/or allowed said

dangerous conditions on the premises. Further Defendant failed to warn its tenants,

invitees, and the public, including Thony Roy, of the existence of said dangerous

conditions; or in the alternative, allowed said dangerous conditions to exist for a length of

time sufficient in which a reasonable inspection would have disclosed the same.

36. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s negligence, Thony Roy

was beat to death by a third party criminal attacker.

37. As a further direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s negligence,

Plaintiff claims the following recoverable damages pursuant to the Florida Wrongful Death

Act:
 a. On behalf of the Estate, a loss of net accumulations and earnings
beyond his death in addition to funeral expenses resultant from his
death;

b. On behalf of the survivors, a loss of support and services from the

date of death, with interest and future loss of support and services
from the date of death, reduced to present value. In addition, as the
decedent’s mother, damages for mental pain and anguish from the
date of his death and into the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margarette Sampson, as Proposed Personal

Representative of the Estate of Thony Roy, demands a trial by jury and a judgment

against Defendant for an amount within jurisdictional limits of this court, to-wit: More than

$50,000.00 and for such other relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

COUNT FOUR: NEGLIGENCE-WRONGFUL DEATH ACT-QUATTRO

Plaintiff sues Quattro and alleges:

38. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19, above.

39. At said time and place, Defendant owed a non-delegable duty to its invitees

and the public to exercise reasonable and ordinary care to maintain the premises located

at 7025 Salisbury Rd, Jacksonville, FL 32256 Duval County, Florida including buildings

and structures thereon, in a condition reasonably safe for use by its invitees, tenants, and

the public.

40. In particular, Defendant had a duty to take such precautions as were

reasonably necessary to protect its tenants, invitees, invited licensees and the public,

including Thony Roy, from reasonably foreseeable criminal attacks.

41. At all material times, Defendant through its agents and/or employees, knew,

or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, the premises was in a high

crime area. Specifically, numerous violent criminal acts occurred in said area, and said
criminal acts were reasonably likely to be perpetrated on tenants, invitees, and the public

unless Defendant took appropriate measures to provide reasonable security for such

individuals.

42. At all material times, Defendant through its agents and/or employees,

knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that prior to January 21,

2023, numerous violent criminal acts occurred on or around Dave & Busters.

43. On or about January 21, 2023, Defendant, its agents, and/or employees

were negligent and breached their duty of reasonable care for the safety and protection

of Thony Roy in a variety of ways including but not limited to the following:

h. Failing to provide adequate security for its tenants, invitees, and the
public, including Thony Roy;

i. Failing to police, patrol, guard, deter, and/or otherwise provide

adequate protection for its tenants, invitees, and the public, when
Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have
known, of reasonably foreseeable third party criminal acts;

j. Failing to have sufficient number of guards in visible areas to deter

crime, thereby protecting its tenants, invitees, and the public,
including Thony Roy, from foreseeable criminal acts;

k. Failing to have an adequate number of security guards to protect its

tenants, invitees, and the public, include Thony Roy;

l. Failing to implement adequate security policies, measures, and/or

procedures necessary to protect Thony Roy, and other tenants,
invitees, and the public, from foreseeable criminal acts;

m. Failing to hire and/or retain competent security guards to protect its

tenants, invitees, and the public, including Thony Roy; and

n. Failing to provide an overall security plan that met known industry

standards and customs fit for safety in the community.
 38. Defendant through its agents and/or employees, negligently failed to devise

and procedures governing the inspection, supervision, and/or security of the area where

the subject incident occurred, or in the alternative;

a. Defendant through its agents and/or employees, devised procedures

governing the inspection, supervision, and/or security of the area
where the subject incident occurred; however, Defendant negligently
and carelessly failed to implement said procedures; or in the
alternative;

b. Defendant through its agents and/or employees, devised procedures

governing the inspection, supervision, and/or security of the area
where the subject incident occurred; however, Defendant
implemented the same in a careless and negligent manner.

39. At all material times, Defendant through its agents and/or employees,

negligently failed to hire persons, employees, and/or agents reasonably suited to provide,

implement, and maintain adequate security measures to ensure the safety of its tenants,

invitees, and the public, including the common area of the apartment where the subject

incident occurred.

40. Defendant through its agents and/or employees created and/or allowed said

dangerous conditions on the premises. Further Defendant failed to warn its tenants,

invitees, and the public, including Thony Roy, of the existence of said dangerous

conditions; or in the alternative, allowed said dangerous conditions to exist for a length of

time sufficient in which a reasonable inspection would have disclosed the same.

41. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s negligence, Thony Roy

was beat to death by a third party criminal attacker.

42. As a further direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s negligence,

Plaintiff claims the following recoverable damages pursuant to the Florida Wrongful Death

Act:
 a. On behalf of the Estate, a loss of net accumulations and earnings
beyond his death in addition to funeral expenses resultant from his
death;

b. On behalf of the survivors, a loss of support and services from the

date of death, with interest and future loss of support and services
from the date of death, reduced to present value. In addition, as the
decedent’s mother, damages for mental pain and anguish from the
date of his death and into the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margarette Sampson, as Proposed Personal

Representative of the Estate of Thony Roy, demands a trial by jury and a judgment

against Defendant for an amount within jurisdictional limits of this court, to-wit: More than

$50,000.00 and for such other relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

COUNT FIVE: NEGLIGENCE-WRONGFUL DEATH ACT-JOHN DOE

Plaintiff, Margarette Sampson, sues John Doe and alleges:

43. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19, above.

44. At all times material hereto, John Doe, through its agents and employees,

owed a duty to the invitees on the premises, including but not limited to the deceased

Thony Roy herein, to exercise reasonable and ordinary care in the discharge of its

undertaken duties. In particular, the Defendant undertook and owed a duty to take such

precautions as were reasonably necessary to protect the business invitees on the

premises , ad the public including but not limited to the deceased, Thony Roy, from

reasonably foreseeable criminal attacks on the premises.

45. At all times material hereto, the Defendant, by and through its agents,

servants and/or employees, were on actual and/or constructive notice that the property

located at 7025 Salisbury Rd, Jacksonville, FL 32256 Duval County, Florida was located

in a high crime area with numerous violent criminal attacks prior to January 21, 2023.
 46. At all times material hereto, said but was breached by this Defendant in

that they:

a. Failed to provide adequate security for the invitees on the

premises;
b. Failed to implement a reasonably prudent security plan for the
subject property including but not limited to adequate details,
patrols and monitoring.

c. Failed to timely patrol, police, guard, deter and otherwise provide

adequate protection for the tenants and invitees when this
Defendant was on actual and/or constructive notice of foreseeable
criminal activity at this property;

d. Failed to have an adequate number of security guards on the

property;

e. Failed to hire and/or retain competent security guards to protect

tenants and invitees but not limited to the deceased, Thony Roy;

f. Failed to properly train security guards to be reasonably skillfull,

competent and/or qualified to exercise appropriate and proper
security measures so that they could protect invitees included but
not limited to decedent Thony Roy.

g. Failed to act to remove and/or address trespassers on the property;

h. Failed to take additional security measures after being put on

notice that they security measures in place were inadequate;

i. Failed to inspect, observe, monitor and patrol the area where the
incident occurred; and

j. Was otherwise negligent in failing to prevent the incident despite

undertaking a duty to be in a position to reasonably prevent same
from occurring.

47. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of this Defendant, Thony

Roy, was beat to death by a third party criminal attacker.

 48. As a further direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s negligence,

Plaintiff claims the following recoverable damages pursuant to the Florida Wrongful Death

Act:

a. On behalf of the Estate, a loss of net accumulations and earnings

beyond his death in addition to funeral expenses resultant from his
death;

b. On behalf of the survivors, a loss of support and services from the date
of death, with interest and future loss of support and services from the
date of death, reduced to present value. In addition, as the decedent’s
mother, damages for mental pain and anguish from the date of his death
and into the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margarette Sampson, as Proposed Personal

Representative of the Estate of Thony Roy, demands a trial by jury and a judgment

against Defendant for an amount within jurisdictional limits of this court, to-wit: More than

$50,000.00 and for such other relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

COUNT SIX: WRONGFUL DEATH ACT-DAVE & BUSTERS, INC.

Plaintiff sues Dave & Busters, Inc. and alleges:

49. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19, above.

50. At all times material hereto, Dave & Busters, Inc. employed the deceased,

Thony Roy.

51. Dave & Busters, Inc. engaged in conduct that it knew, based on prior similar

accidents or on explicit warnings specifically identifying a known danger, was virtually

certain to result in injury or death to Thony Roy, and Thony Roy was not aware of the risk

because the danger was not apparent and Dave & Busters, Inc. deliberately concealed

or misrepresented the danger so as to prevent Thony Roy from exercising informed

judgment about whether to perform the work.

 52. Specifically, Dave & Busters, Inc. knew that its employee, Cordell Samuel

Bentley-Russell, had a violent past based on prior similar accidents or on explicit warnings

specifically identifying a known danger, and Dave & Busters, Inc. assigned Thony Roy to

work directly with Cordell Samuel Bentley-Russell despite knowing it was virtually certain

to result in injury or death to Thony Roy, a risk Thony Roy was not aware of because it

as not apparent and Dave & Busters, Inc. deliberately concealed said risk or

misrepresented said danger as to prevent Thony Roy from exercising informed judgment

about whether to perform the work.

53. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Thony Roy, was

beat to death by Cordell Samuel Bentley-Russell.

54. Cordell Samuel Bentley-Russell acted with willful and wanton disregard

and/or unprovoked physical aggression and/or with gross negligence in beating Thony

Roy to death and such acts were the direct and proximate cause of Thony Roy’s death.

55. As a further direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff

claims the following recoverable damages pursuant to the Florida Wrongful Death Act:

a. On behalf of the Estate, a loss of net accumulations and earnings

beyond his death in addition to funeral expenses resultant from his
death;

b. On behalf of the survivors, a loss of support and services from the date
of death, with interest and future loss of support and services from the
date of death, reduced to present value. In addition, as the decedent’s
mother, damages for mental pain and anguish from the date of his death
and into the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margarette Sampson, as Proposed Personal

Representative of the Estate of Thony Roy, demands a trial by jury and a judgment
against Defendant for an amount within jurisdictional limits of this court, to-wit: More than

$50,000.00 and for such other relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

COUNT SEVEN: WRONGFUL DEATH ACT-DAVE & BUSTERS OF FLORIDA, LP

Plaintiff sues Dave & Busters and alleges:

56. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19, above.

57. At all times material hereto, Dave & Buster’s of Florida, LP employed the

deceased, Thony Roy.

58. Dave & Buster’s of Florida, LP engaged in conduct that it knew, based on

prior similar accidents or on explicit warnings specifically identifying a known danger, was

virtually certain to result in injury or death to Thony Roy, and Thony Roy was not aware

of the risk because the danger was not apparent and Dave & Buster’s of Florida, LP

deliberately concealed or misrepresented the danger so as to prevent Thony Roy from

exercising informed judgment about whether to perform the work.

59. Specifically, Dave & Buster’s of Florida, LP knew that its employee, Cordell

Samuel Bentley-Russell, had a violent past based on prior similar accidents or on explicit

warnings specifically identifying a known danger, and Dave & Buster’s of Florida, LP

assigned Thony Roy to work directly with Cordell Samuel Bentley-Russell despite

knowing it was virtually certain to result in injury or death to Thony Roy, a risk Thony Roy

was not aware of because it as not apparent and Dave & Buster’s of Florida, LP

deliberately concealed said risk or misrepresented said danger as to prevent Thony Roy

from exercising informed judgment about whether to perform the work.

60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Thony Roy, was

beat to death by Cordell Samuel Bentley-Russell.

 61. Cordell Samuel Bentley-Russell acted with willful and wanton disregard

and/or unprovoked physical aggression and/or with gross negligence in beating Thony

Roy to death and such acts were the direct and proximate cause of Thony Roy’s death.

62. As a further direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff

claims the following recoverable damages pursuant to the Florida Wrongful Death Act:

a. On behalf of the Estate, a loss of net accumulations and earnings

beyond his death in addition to funeral expenses resultant from his
death;

b. On behalf of the survivors, a loss of support and services from the date
of death, with interest and future loss of support and services from the
date of death, reduced to present value. In addition, as the decedent’s
mother, damages for mental pain and anguish from the date of his death
and into the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margarette Sampson, as Proposed Personal

Representative of the Estate of Thony Roy, demands a trial by jury and a judgment

against Defendant for an amount within jurisdictional limits of this court, to-wit: More than

$50,000.00 and for such other relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

COUNT EIGHT: WRONGFUL DEATH ACT-DAVE & BUSTERS MANAGEMENT

CORPORATION, INC.
Plaintiff sues Dave & Buster’s Management Corporation, Inc. and alleges:

63. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19, above.

64. At all times material hereto, Dave & Buster’s Management Corporation, Inc.

employed the deceased, Thony Roy.

65. Dave & Buster’s Management Corporation, Inc. of Florida, LP engaged in

conduct that it knew, based on prior similar accidents or on explicit warnings specifically

identifying a known danger, was virtually certain to result in injury or death to Thony Roy,

and Thony Roy was not aware of the risk because the danger was not apparent and Dave
& Buster’s Management Corporation, Inc. deliberately concealed or misrepresented the

danger so as to prevent Thony Roy from exercising informed judgment about whether to

perform the work.

66. Specifically, Dave & Buster’s Management Corporation, Inc. knew that its

employee, Cordell Samuel Bentley-Russell, had a violent past based on prior similar

accidents or on explicit warnings specifically identifying a known danger, and Dave &

Buster’s Management Corporation, Inc. assigned Thony Roy to work directly with Cordell

Samuel Bentley-Russell despite knowing it was virtually certain to result in injury or death

to Thony Roy, a risk Thony Roy was not aware of because it as not apparent and Dave

& Buster’s of Florida, LP deliberately concealed said risk or misrepresented said danger

as to prevent Thony Roy from exercising informed judgment about whether to perform

the work.

67. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Thony Roy, was

beat to death by Cordell Samuel Bentley-Russell.

68. Cordell Samuel Bentley-Russell acted with willful and wanton disregard

and/or unprovoked physical aggression and/or with gross negligence in beating Thony

Roy to death and such acts were the direct and proximate cause of Thony Roy’s death.

69. As a further direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff

claims the following recoverable damages pursuant to the Florida Wrongful Death Act:

a. On behalf of the Estate, a loss of net accumulations and earnings

beyond his death in addition to funeral expenses resultant from his
death;

b. On behalf of the survivors, a loss of support and services from the date
of death, with interest and future loss of support and services from the
date of death, reduced to present value. In addition, as the decedent’s
 mother, damages for mental pain and anguish from the date of his death
and into the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margarette Sampson, as Proposed Personal

Representative of the Estate of Thony Roy, demands a trial by jury and a judgment

against Defendant for an amount within jurisdictional limits of this court, to-wit: More than

$50,000.00 and for such other relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

COUNT NINE: WRONGFUL DEATH ACT-

CORDELL SAMUEL BENTLEY-RUSSELL
Plaintiff, Margarette Sampson, sues Cordell Samuel Bentley-Russel and alleges:

70. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 69, above.

71. At all times material hereto, one or all of the Dave & Busters entities

employed the deceased, Thony Roy.

72. At all times material hereto, one or all of the Dave & Busters entities

employed Cordell Samuel Bentley-Russell.

73. Cordell Samuel Bentley-Russell acted with willful and wanton disregard

and/or unprovoked physical aggression and/or with gross negligence in violently attacking

Thony Roy and such acts were the direct and proximate cause of Thony Roy’s death.

74. As a further direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff

claims the following recoverable damages pursuant to the Florida Wrongful Death Act:

a. On behalf of the Estate, a loss of net accumulations and earnings

beyond his death in addition to funeral expenses resultant from his
death;

b. On behalf of the survivors, a loss of support and services from the date
of death, with interest and future loss of support and services from the
date of death, reduced to present value. In addition, as the decedent’s
mother, damages for mental pain and anguish from the date of his death
and into the future.
 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margarette Sampson, as Proposed Personal

Representative of the Estate of Thony Roy, demands a trial by jury and a judgment

against Defendant for an amount within jurisdictional limits of this court, to-wit: More than

$50,000.00 and for such other relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

COUNT TEN: RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR DAVE & BUSTER'S, INC.

Plaintiff sues Dave & Buster's, Inc. and alleges:

75. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 74, above.

76. At all times material hereto, Defendant Cordell Samuel Bentley-Russell was

an employee for Defendant Dave & Buster's, Inc. and was acting within the course and

scope of their employment for Defendant Dave & Buster's, Inc. in furtherance of Dave &

Buster's, Inc.’s interests.

77. Cordell Samuel Bentley-Russell was assisted in accomplishing the physical

beating and manslaughter of Thony Roy by the employment relationship with Dave &

Buster's, Inc.

78. At all times material hereto, Defendant Dave & Buster's, Inc. was and is

vicariously liable for the acts of its agent, employee, or representative, Defendant Cordell

Samuel Bentley-Russell.

79. As a further direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff

claims the following recoverable damages pursuant to the Florida Wrongful Death Act:

a. On behalf of the Estate, a loss of net accumulations and earnings

beyond his death in addition to funeral expenses resultant from his
death;

b. On behalf of the survivors, a loss of support and services from the date
of death, with interest and future loss of support and services from the
date of death, reduced to present value. In addition, as the decedent’s
mother, damages for mental pain and anguish from the date of his death
and into the future.
 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margarette Sampson, as Proposed Personal

Representative of the Estate of Thony Roy, demands a trial by jury and a judgment

against Defendant for an amount within jurisdictional limits of this court, to-wit: More than

$50,000.00 and for such other relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

COUNT ELEVEN: RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR DAVE & BUSTER’S OF FLORIDA, LP

Plaintiff sues Dave & Buster’s of Florida, LP and alleges:

80. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 79, above.

81. At all times material hereto, Defendant Cordell Samuel Bentley-Russell was

an employee for Defendant Dave & Buster’s of Florida, LP and was acting within the

course and scope of their employment for Defendant Dave & Buster’s of Florida, LP in

furtherance of Dave & Buster's, Inc.’s interests.

82. Cordell Samuel Bentley-Russell was assisted in accomplishing the physical

beating and manslaughter of Thony Roy by the employment relationship with Dave &

Buster’s of Florida, LP.

83. At all times material hereto, Defendant Dave & Buster’s of Florida, LP was

and is vicariously liable for the acts of its agent, employee, or representative, Defendant

Cordell Samuel Bentley-Russell.

84. As a further direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff

claims the following recoverable damages pursuant to the Florida Wrongful Death Act:

a. On behalf of the Estate, a loss of net accumulations and earnings

beyond his death in addition to funeral expenses resultant from his
death;

b. On behalf of the survivors, a loss of support and services from the date
of death, with interest and future loss of support and services from the
date of death, reduced to present value. In addition, as the decedent’s
 mother, damages for mental pain and anguish from the date of his death
and into the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margarette Sampson, as Proposed Personal

Representative of the Estate of Thony Roy, demands a trial by jury and a judgment

against Defendant for an amount within jurisdictional limits of this court, to-wit: More than

$50,000.00 and for such other relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

COUNT TWELVE: RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR DAVE & BUSTER’S MANAGEMENT

CORPORATION, INC.
Plaintiff sues Dave & Buster’s of Florida, LP and alleges:

85. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 84, above.

86. At all times material hereto, Defendant Cordell Samuel Bentley-Russell was

an employee for Defendant Dave & Buster’s Management Corporation, Inc.and was

acting within the course and scope of their employment for Defendant Dave & Buster’s

Management Corporation, Inc. in furtherance of Dave & Buster's, Inc.’s interests.

87. Cordell Samuel Bentley-Russell was assisted in accomplishing the physical

beating and manslaughter of Thony Roy by the employment relationship with Dave &

Buster’s Management Corporation, Inc.

88. At all times material hereto, Defendant Dave & Buster’s Management

Corporation, Inc. was and is vicariously liable for the acts of its agent, employee, or

representative, Defendant Cordell Samuel Bentley-Russell.

89. As a further direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff

claims the following recoverable damages pursuant to the Florida Wrongful Death Act:

a. On behalf of the Estate, a loss of net accumulations and earnings

beyond his death in addition to funeral expenses resultant from his
death;
 b. On behalf of the survivors, a loss of support and services from the date
of death, with interest and future loss of support and services from the
date of death, reduced to present value. In addition, as the decedent’s
mother, damages for mental pain and anguish from the date of his death
and into the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margarette Sampson, as Proposed Personal

Representative of the Estate of Thony Roy, demands a trial by jury and a judgment

against Defendant for an amount within jurisdictional limits of this court, to-wit: More than

$50,000.00 and for such other relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial for the claims alleged herein.

Respectfully Submitted,
Beacon Legal PLLC

/s/ Landon Stinson

Landon D. Stinson
Florida Bar No. 1018971
landon@beacon.legal
(352) 415-4571
2630-A NW 41 St.
Gainesville, FL 32606