Falden v. Crix Chevy Chase Owner, LLC

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 15, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2026-0147
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________ ) TIFFANY FALDEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 26-cv-00147 (APM) ) CRIX CHEVY CHASE OWNER, LLC, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________ )

ORDER

The court has considered Defendant Universal Protection Service, LLC’s Motion to

Dismiss, ECF No. 15, and it is denied. On the facts alleged, it is plausible that security guards

employed by Defendant would have been aware of Mr. Cousins’s presence at the hotel and the risk

to physical safety that he posed to hotel guests, including Plaintiff’s daughter. See Am. Compl.,

ECF No. 14, ¶¶ 11–12, 26–29, 36–43, 45. It is plausible, therefore, that Defendant owed Plaintiff’s

daughter a duty of care. True, Plaintiff does not allege that any particular security guard knew

about Mr. Cousins’s actions before the shooting, but at this stage Plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual

allegations establish that it is at least plausible that discovery might uncover such knowledge given

Mr. Cousins’ multiple entries and exits from the hotel, the loud and boisterous activities in Room

718, and his threat to “blow the place up.” See id. ¶¶ 26–29, 36–43, 45; cf. Wash. Metro. Area

Transit Auth. v. O’Neill, 633 A.2d 834, 840 (D.C. 1993) (sustaining jury verdict against common

carrier where the evidence showed bus driver had actual knowledge of the risk a passenger posed

to others); Spar v. Obwoya, 369 A.2d 173, 177 (D.C. 1977) (affirming jury verdict against landlord

and apartment manager for a shooting-robbery that occurred within a common hallway where there was evidence of other criminal conduct in the building’s hallways, the inadequacy of building

security, security improvements by nearby buildings, and notice of tenants’ concerns about

security).1 Further, this court previously has said that District of Columbia cases concerning the

foreseeability of a third party’s criminal acts “strongly signal that determining whether a duty

exists is better evaluated on a full factual record that establishes the precise nature and location of

relevant prior criminal activity and the defendant’s knowledge of such activity.” Logan v. Jones

Lang LaSalle Ams., Inc., No. 18-CV-02278 (APM), 2019 WL 1960208, at *2 (D.D.C. May 2,

2019) (citing cases). That observation applies squarely here, too.

For those reasons, the court denies Defendant Universal Protection Service’s motion to

dismiss.

Dated: April 15, 2026 Amit P. Mehta United States District Judge

1 To be clear, the court offers no opinion on whether Plaintiff might be able to sustain her burden even in the absence of proof of actual knowledge of Mr. Cousins’s actions before the shooting.