Miami Jury Awards $20M in Grocery Store Shooting
Table of Contents
Case Background
On November 4, 2017, Diego Suarez Perez entered Tony’s Food Market, a neighborhood grocery store in Miami’s Liberty City area. He came as a business invitee, visiting the store for everyday needs.
As he stood outside, armed men attacked him. The assailants robbed him and shot him, leaving him severely wounded. The store sat at 2541 NW 95th Street, a location surrounded by crime for years. Perez claimed the property owners and operators ignored clear warnings and failed to protect customers from foreseeable danger.
Perez sued the store’s operating company, 4 Brothers LLC, and its principals, Eddy and Sara Casamayor. He alleged they failed to maintain safe premises and disregarded a duty to provide basic security for patrons.
Cause
Perez’s complaint rested on negligence. He argued the store owners and operators knew the property sat in a high-crime zone but failed to act. According to Perez, the store allowed an open-air drug market to thrive on its grounds. The environment drew criminal activity and placed customers like him at direct risk.
He said the Defendants failed to hire guards, install cameras, or patrol the premises. They did not warn invitees of danger despite multiple prior robberies and violent crimes near the store. Their inaction, he claimed, directly caused his shooting and lasting injuries.
Injury
Perez survived the attack but suffered catastrophic harm. The gunshot wounds left him with permanent physical impairment and disfigurement. He experienced long-term pain, both physical and mental.
His complaint described disability, loss of mobility, and emotional trauma. He lived with fear and anguish, no longer able to enjoy daily life. His condition required hospitalization, surgeries, and ongoing medical treatment. He also faced lost earnings and diminished ability to work in the future.
Damages
Perez demanded damages for medical bills, lost income, pain, suffering, and loss of capacity to enjoy life. He stressed that the harm was permanent, not temporary.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Plaintiff’s Position
Perez’s attorneys argued that Tony’s Food Market operated in one of Miami’s most crime-ridden neighborhoods. They presented evidence of prior robberies, assaults, and drug activity on or near the premises.
They said the Casamayors and their company knew the risks but chose not to act. The store allegedly allowed drug dealers and criminals to use its property openly. Despite repeated warnings, the owners failed to invest in security or even provide basic safeguards.
Perez’s team framed the case around foreseeability: crime was not a surprise, but an expected threat. They argued that by ignoring history, the Defendants placed profit above safety.
Defense’s Position
The Defendants denied liability. Eddy and Sara Casamayor filed an answer rejecting Perez’s claims. They argued they did not know about the specific risk of the attack. They said the shooting was a sudden, unforeseeable criminal act beyond their control.
The defense asserted that Perez bore some responsibility. They raised comparative negligence, claiming his own actions contributed to his harm. They also argued he failed to mitigate damages and exaggerated his injuries.
Finally, they invoked Florida law limiting premises liability for criminal acts by third parties. They maintained that they could not be held liable for the unforeseeable behavior of unknown attackers.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Diego E. Suarez Perez
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Kevin Mulet | Carlos A Jordi, Esq
Experts for Plaintiff(s): Anthony J. Hall | Marie A. DiCowden | Michael D’Angelo | Robert Starke | Howard Lieberman
Defendant(s): 4 Brothers, LLC d/b/a Tony’s Food Market | Eddy Casamayor | Sara Casamayor
Counsel for Defendant(s): George L. Fernandez | Lorraine Lester
Experts for Defendant(s): Gregg O. McCrary | Sergio M. Gonzalez-Arias
Claims
Negligence Against 4 Brothers LLC
Perez claimed the company owned and operated the market. He said it negligently failed to maintain the premises, ignored prior crimes, and allowed unsafe conditions that led to his shooting.
Negligence Against Eddy Casamayor
Perez alleged that Eddy Casamayor, as an owner and operator, bore direct responsibility. He argued that Eddy knew about crime in the area but failed to secure the premises or warn customers.
Negligence Against Sara Casamayor
Similar claims were brought against Sara Casamayor. Perez said she shared ownership duties and had the power to implement safety measures. Her failure to act, he argued, contributed to the incident.
Defense
The defense raised several affirmative defenses:
Perez was negligent, contributing to his own injuries.
He failed to mitigate damages after the shooting.
The attack was caused by intervening criminal acts of third parties.
Defendants neither knew nor should have known of the danger.
The case was barred by Florida statutes on premises liability.
Defendants claimed protection under comparative negligence and collateral source setoffs.
They also suggested the statute of limitations might bar the claims.
Jury Verdict
On July 9, 2025, the jury returned its verdict. After hearing weeks of testimony, they sided with Perez.
They found the Defendants negligent and concluded their failures played a legal role in his injuries. The jury rejected the defense’s arguments about unforeseability and comparative negligence.
The panel awarded Perez $20 million in total damages:
$10 million for past pain, suffering, disability, and mental anguish.
$10 million for future losses tied to lifelong impairment and loss of enjoyment of life.
The verdict marked a clear message: property owners must take reasonable steps to protect customers in known high-crime areas.