A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has denied a security contractor's motion for summary judgment in a civil lawsuit arising from the September 19, 2022 stabbing of a hospital employee outside Mission Community Hospital in Panorama City. The July 20, 2026 ruling allows the claims against A Team Security, Inc. to move forward. It does not decide whether the company was negligent or establish liability for the attack.

The case, Delena v. A Team Security, Inc., Case No. 24VECV04148, concerns an assault near the hospital entrance. The attack was the subject of local news coverage when it occurred. CBS Los Angeles reported at the time that the injured employee was a nurse, while the court's ruling describes an assault on the private sidewalk outside the hospital lobby.

What the Court Considered

According to the July 20 order, A Team Security sought summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not show it owed a duty, breached a duty, or caused the alleged damages. The plaintiffs opposed the motion. The company's contract described security services involving observation and reporting, and the motion raised questions about the scope of any responsibility to protect people on the premises from third-party criminal conduct.

The court also examined evidence and arguments about an interaction between a security guard and the unidentified person alleged to have carried out the attack. The plaintiffs argued that a guard had approached the person and ordered him to leave but had not made sure he departed. They also presented an expert declaration concerning security practices and communications among guards. Those were litigation positions and evidence considered at the summary judgment stage, not final findings of negligence.

Why the Motion Was Denied

The court explained that a security contractor does not automatically assume an unlimited duty to prevent every unforeseeable criminal act. However, the scope of a duty can be affected by conduct a security guard affirmatively undertakes. The ruling found a triable question concerning whether the guard's interaction with the person gave rise to a duty and, if so, whether that duty was breached.

The final order reflects a significant procedural development. The court's initial tentative ruling would have granted A Team Security's motion. Following extensive oral argument, the judge took the matter under submission, changed the tentative ruling and denied summary judgment. A Team Security subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court also denied. Neither ruling determines which side should prevail at trial.

What Comes Next

A denial of summary judgment means the defense did not establish that the case should be resolved in its favor without trial on the grounds presented. The remaining claims must still be proven through the litigation process, and disputed factual questions remain unresolved. The parties may continue to contest the scope of any duty, whether it was breached, causation, and damages.

Greenberg and Ruby Injury Attorneys represents the plaintiffs in this litigation. The case illustrates how the legal analysis of third-party violence can depend on the precise facts of a security provider's undertaking, rather than on the existence of a security contract alone. The firm also provides information about third-party work injury claims and work-related injury litigation in Los Angeles.