Do-over granted for premises liability claim over heist

A trial court judge on Thursday sustained a demurrer filed by the owners of a truck stop where a massive jewelry heist took place, saying the plaintiffs did not plead sufficiently similar facts to establish foreseeability under premises liability.

The plaintiffs — jewelers whose goods worth millions of dollars were stolen from a Brink’s armored truck while it was parked at the Flying J Truck Stop in Lebec in 2022 — alleged premises liability against the truck stop’s owner, saying that Pilot Travel Centers LLC had a duty to maintain reasonably safe conditions for trucks and their “vulnerable” cargo.

But Judge Thomas D. Long did not accept that the thefts plaintiffs claimed had occurred near the truck stop over several years were sufficiently similar to the jewelry burglary.

“Plaintiffs’ new allegations include the theft of Pilot’s golf cart in 2019; a bomb threat in April 2020; thefts of an iPod, a necklace, and cash kept in one woman’s center console, and credit card information at the promises; a stolen truck; two thefts of catalytic converters; theft of money from a vehicle; and theft of debit card information from at least 2016 to July 2023,” Long wrote in his tentative order, which he adopted on Thursday.

“These are not prior similar criminal incidents. Even if they were, the only thefts for which plaintiffs allege facts to show Pilot’s knowledge is the theft of its own golf cart and credit card information. According to plaintiffs, many of these thefts ‘have been reported on social media, thus putting the Flying J Truck Stop on notice.’ But this does not allege any facts showing Pilot’s actual notice for foreseeability,” Long continued.

Long intended to dismiss defendant Pilot Travel Centers from the action, but gave the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaint after their attorney, Steven C. Shuman, informed the judge that he had new information. Shuman is a litigator with Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack.

“We’ve got an even more similar incident now that I’ve uncovered … since the pleading we’re talking about here,” Shuman said to Long.

“OK, so this is something that I haven’t yet seen,” the judge replied.

“That’s correct, and that goes to leave to amend,” Shuman responded.

The similar incident, Shuman said, involved a trucker who happened upon a rig at the Flying J with a trailer wide open, half full, and people milling about.

“He ascertained that someone had broken into that rig, cut the seal, compromised the lock – the locking mechanism – somehow and taken electronics out of that rig,” Shuman said. “If nothing else moves the needle for the court today, that should suffice as a virtually identical prior instance, and he did confirm it was before our theft in this case.”

“You’re saying, all of this happened before the incident at issue here,” Long said.

“Yes,” Shuman replied.

Twenty-two bags containing millions of dollars worth of jewelry and gemstones belonging to the plaintiffs were taken in the burglary that occurred around 2 a.m. in July 2022. One of the drivers was asleep in the truck’s sleeping berth at the time of the robbery — in compliance with Department of Transportation Regulations, according to Brink’s -– and the other driver was inside the Flying J getting food.

When Driver 1 returned to the truck, he discovered that the red plastic seal around the trailer had been cut, and the rear lock had been cut away. Driver 2, who had been sleeping, said he did not see or hear anything unusual, according to their employer.

The jewelers sued Brink’s in August 2022 when it refused to pay their claims for reimbursement. But Brink’s says the plaintiffs under-declared the value of their goods. The third amended complaint asserts one cause of action against the owners of the truck stop: premises liability. The dispute spawned lawsuits in California and New York, and the FBI is investigating. Theresa Chang dba Treasure Connection, et al. v. Brink’s Global Services USA Inc., 22STCV27209 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Aug. 22, 2022).

“The immediate area of the Flying J Truck Stop has a known history of property thefts, and there have been prior incidents of thefts of personal property, including from vehicles,” Shuman wrote in the filing.

“In just the four months immediately preceding the theft from this Brink’s vehicle, there were at least four known thefts of property in the area and four known instances of physical assault,” he continued.

Pilot demurred to the original and first amended complaints, saying the plaintiffs failed to allege facts against Pilot showing prior similar incidents that meet the heightened foreseeability requirement to establish liability.

Long sustained those demurrers and gave the plaintiffs leave to amend.

“The second amended complaint fails for the same reasons. In spite of the plaintiffs’ new, vague allegations of dissimilar incidents of purported thefts from Flying J Truck Stop, the SAC fails to establish the robbery was foreseeable to Pilot such that liability may be imposed for the robbers’ criminal conduct,” Andrew S. Attia of Grant, Genovese & Baratta LLP wrote in Pilot’s demurrer to the second amended complaint.

Attia told Long on Thursday that he had heard Shuman’s pitch before.

“The court has found and I agree that those allegations are insufficient. They’re not similar to the robbery here. And more importantly, there’s no notice,” Attia said.

“Now plaintiff’s counsel said … after the last iteration of the complaint, discussed with these individuals … that someone saw a big rig with the back of the truck open and electronics missing. That’s the sort of shaky, I believe, answer that was given last time,” Attia continued.

Long said he was going to adopt his tentative but with one change: 30 days leave to amend.

“And I expect that there will be another demurrer. And that as a result of the next demurrer, I will get the best possible record on both sides,” Long told the parties.