Alexander v. 1328 Uptown, Inc.

Background

D’Andre I. Alexander was shot by Eddie Burch shortly after a fight that began inside Bar Louie. Burch later pleaded guilty and received a 98-month prison sentence. Alexander alleged that three organizations affiliated with Bar Louie were responsible for failing to prevent the shooting. He asserted five common-law claims—negligence, innkeeper liability (negligent security), negligence per se, negligent undertaking, and negligent infliction of emotional distress—and a claim under Minnesota’s Dram Shop Act.

The business operating as Bar Louie was 1328 Uptown, Inc. Fortney Hospitality Group, Inc. was 1328 Uptown’s parent company, and Fortney Companies, Inc. provided management and administrative services to businesses owned by Fortney Hospitality Group, including 1328 Uptown.

Summary-judgment standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court viewed the evidence and reasonable inferences favorably to Alexander when deciding the motions.

Fortney Hospitality Group and Fortney Companies

The court granted summary judgment to both Fortney defendants on all of Alexander’s claims. It rejected Alexander’s argument that their relationship with 1328 Uptown allowed him to attribute 1328 Uptown’s alleged negligence to them through veil piercing. Veil piercing is a theory that treats a corporation’s separate legal identity as unavailable under certain circumstances. The court noted that an earlier order had denied Alexander’s request to pursue discovery and possibly amend his complaint to assert that theory, and Alexander had not challenged that order.

The court also found no evidence supporting direct liability for either Fortney defendant. Fortney Hospitality Group’s contractual obligations under the franchise agreement concerned financial and administrative matters and did not create a tort duty to Bar Louie patrons. Fortney Companies’ agreement to provide management services likewise did not establish tort liability. The court concluded that Alexander identified neither a duty imposed by law nor a duty voluntarily assumed through the defendants’ conduct.

The court further stated that these conclusions meant the Fortney defendants could not be liable under the Dram Shop Act because Alexander had identified no reason to find that either defendant caused Burch’s intoxication.

1328 Uptown’s motion

The court granted in part and denied in part 1328 Uptown’s motion for partial summary judgment. 1328 Uptown did not seek summary judgment on Alexander’s Dram Shop Act claim.

The court granted summary judgment on Count 1, the general negligence claim, because Minnesota law treats a bar owner’s duty to protect patrons under the circumstances as an innkeeper-liability claim rather than a generic negligence claim. It also noted that Minnesota does not recognize a separate negligent-security claim.

The court granted summary judgment on Count 3, negligence per se, because the Minneapolis licensing ordinances Alexander cited did not create a tort duty of care. Negligence per se is a form of negligence based on violating a statute or ordinance that establishes the relevant standard of conduct. The court found that the ordinances were broad licensing and public-safety provisions, not rules designed to protect a particular class from the specific harm Alexander suffered.

The court granted summary judgment on Count 4, negligent undertaking. It stated that Minnesota appeared not to recognize the claim in this setting and that, even if the claim were recognized, 1328 Uptown had not undertaken to provide security. The record showed that Bar Louie had not employed security personnel or contracted with a security company, and Alexander testified that he did not rely on security provided by Bar Louie.

The court granted summary judgment on Count 5, negligent infliction of emotional distress. Minnesota’s version of that claim generally requires that the plaintiff be in a zone of danger, reasonably fear for their safety, and suffer severe emotional distress with physical manifestations. Because Alexander was actually shot and seriously injured, rather than placed in danger without being physically harmed, the court found that the claim did not fit Minnesota’s legal requirements.

Innkeeper liability

The court denied summary judgment on Count 2, Alexander’s innkeeper-liability claim. Under Minnesota law, the claim requires proof that the defendant had notice of the offending person’s dangerous tendencies, had an adequate opportunity to protect the injured patron, failed to take reasonable protective steps, and could reasonably foresee the injury. The plaintiff must also show that the breach caused the injury.

The court found that the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to conclude that 1328 Uptown had notice of Burch’s dangerous tendencies. The evidence included Burch’s obvious intoxication, his harassment of other patrons, his interaction with Alexander, the kiss and resulting push at the bar, and the fact that these events occurred before the fight and shooting. The court also found jury questions about whether 1328 Uptown had opportunities to refuse Burch admission or remove him, whether it failed to take reasonable protective steps, whether the shooting was foreseeable, and whether its conduct caused Alexander’s injuries. The evidence included an employee’s apparent observation that Burch dropped or retrieved his firearm inside the bar before continuing to pursue Alexander.

Order

Judge Eric C. Tostrud ordered that Fortney Hospitality Group and Fortney Companies’ motion for summary judgment was granted. He ordered that 1328 Uptown’s motion for partial summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part: it was granted as to Counts 1, 3, 4, and 5, and denied as to Count 2. The opinion states that Alexander’s innkeeper-liability claim and Dram Shop Act claim against 1328 Uptown remained for trial.