Fallbrook Landscaper Shooting Wrongful Death & Premises Liability Lawsuit — Attorney911 Holds the Vacation Rental Owner and Adjacent Neighbor for Failing to Protect Workers from Known Racial Hostility, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Attorney Who Knows How the Claims Machine Undervalues Workplace Violence, We Preserve the Prior Incident Reports and Security Footage Before the Overwrite, California’s Wrongful Death Act Allows Recovery for the Four Children Left Without Their Father, the Firm Has Recovered Millions in Fatal Cases — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

The Night the Landscaping Crew Didn’t Come Home

You are reading this in the dark, or you are reading it in daylight with that same darkness behind your eyes. Maybe you are Martina, the daughter who remembers the last conversation: “I’ll call you later, or I’ll call you tomorrow because I’m working, but I love you.” Maybe you are the mother of four who just learned that the man who called every night after his shift was never going to call again. Maybe you are the other landscaper, the one who went home from the hospital this time, carrying a wound in your body and a question in your chest that no one answered: why did he shoot us? Maybe you are the brother, the sister, the cousin, the friend who keeps replaying the last text, the last wave, the last ordinary goodbye that wasn’t ordinary at all.

If that is you, we are sorry for what brought you to this page. We know no page can do anything about the hole that is now in your family. What this page can do is tell you, in plain English, what California law actually says about who answers for what happened on Avo Drive on the night of March 16, 2026 — and what we, the trial team at Attorney911, would do for you from the first hour you call us. We work these cases. We work them in California. We have walked families exactly like yours from the first disbelieving phone call through the criminal trial and into the civil courtroom where the money — the only kind of accountability the law can give you — is decided.

If you are reading this from Fallbrook, from Oceanside, from Escondido, from anywhere in San Diego County or Southern California, you can reach us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at 1-888-ATTY-911. That call is free. The consultation is free. We do not get paid unless we recover for you.

What Happened on Avo Drive That Evening

Here are the facts as the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department has reported and as our team understands them, stated without sensationalism and without our own conclusions mixed in:

Around 8:00 p.m. on the evening of March 16, 2026, two landscapers were finishing work at a vacation rental property on Avo Drive, just off East Mission Road, in the unincorporated community of Fallbrook, in northern San Diego County. Fallbrook is the rural “Avocado Capital” — large parcels, low-density zoning, the kind of place where the houses are spread out, the lots are big, and the work crews are alone on a property more often than not. The vacation rental was operated by a property owner identified in reporting as Alan Hsu. The crew was contracted landscaping labor, doing yard work for the rental.

A 70-year-old neighbor, identified by authorities as Michael Burke, allegedly opened fire on the two workers at the property. The senior member of the crew — Martin Lucas, age 40, a Guatemalan immigrant, a father of four — sustained catastrophic traumatic gunshot injuries and was pronounced dead at the scene by San Diego County Sheriff’s deputies. The second worker was shot as well, was hospitalized, and survived. Burke was taken into custody, booked into the Vista Detention Facility (the North County jail complex in Vista, where San Diego Sheriff pre-trial inmates are processed), and arraigned on charges of murder and attempted murder.

In the days that followed, public reporting surfaced a critical fact: Mr. Hsu, the property owner, told a local outlet that Burke had, in his words, made a racial comment to a prior gardener at the property several years earlier, around 2018. That statement, made to the press, is a piece of evidence we will return to — because it is the single most important sentence in this entire case, and the property owner said it himself.

A vigil for Martin Lucas was held in the Fallbrook community on the Wednesday evening before this writing. His daughter Martina told reporters about her last conversation with her father. She wore a shirt bearing his face and a message in Spanish that translated to: “Your wings were ready to fly, but my heart was never ready to let you go.”

We are not going to pretend those words are not in the room. They are. We are going to build the case that gets your family the financial security that lets the rest of your life — the decades you still have to live without him — proceed with dignity. That is what the civil system is for. Let us show you how it works.

Who Can Be Held Accountable in California — and How

A shooting death on a residential property involves three distinct legal targets, each with its own theory of liability, its own insurance coverage, and its own strategic role in the case. We will not let you walk out of the first meeting thinking there is only one defendant and one pocket to reach into. There is rarely one. In this incident, there are at least three, and the case must be built around all of them from day one.

Target One: The Shooter (Michael Burke)

Burke is the obvious defendant. He is also the defendant most likely to be judgment-proof — a 70-year-old neighbor in an unincorporated San Diego County community may or may not have substantial assets or insurance, and California’s exclusionary rule in homeowner’s insurance almost always excludes intentional acts (the “intentional acts exclusion” — also called the “expected or intended injury exclusion”) from coverage. That means Burke’s homeowner’s policy will almost certainly refuse to indemnify him for a deliberate shooting, leaving whatever assets he personally owns as the recovery source.

But that does not mean Burke is not worth suing. He is, for three reasons. First, a judgment against Burke is necessary to preserve the full scope of liability for the property owner and the rental platform under California tort doctrine — the legal principle that a defendant’s own wrong cannot be shifted to a codefendant (the “non-delegable duty” and “vicarious liability” analysis), and California Civil Code § 1714’s general rule that everyone is responsible for their own negligent or wrongful acts. Second, Burke’s personal assets, retirement accounts (subject to California exemption protections under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 704.010 et seq.), and any non-excluded insurance umbrella can still be reached. Third, Burke is the evidence source — he is the man who fired the shots, and everything the property owner knew (or should have known) about him is admissible to prove the property owner’s own negligence and malice.

“Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.” — California Civil Code § 1714(a)

That is the California Legislature’s plain statement of the principle your case will live inside. It is the bedrock. Every theory of liability we will plead — against Burke, against Hsu, against anyone else — sits on that one sentence.

Target Two: The Property Owner (Alan Hsu)

This is the centerpiece of the civil case. Hsu is the property owner who hired the landscaping crew to come onto his property to do work. Under California law, when a property owner hires an independent contractor to perform work on the property, the owner generally owes that contractor (and the contractor’s workers) a duty of reasonable care to ensure the premises are reasonably safe from foreseeable third-party criminal conduct. The doctrine is commonly called negligent security or premises liability for third-party criminal acts.

The elements of a negligent-security claim under California law are:

1. The property owner owed a duty of care to the victim. California courts have long held that a property owner owes a duty of reasonable care to people lawfully on the property, including workers hired to perform services. Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968), is the foundational California Supreme Court decision rejecting rigid categorical duty rules in favor of a general duty of reasonable care, and the case has been continuously reaffirmed.

2. The criminal act was reasonably foreseeable. A property owner is not strictly liable for every criminal act by a third party. The plaintiff must show that the specific type of harm was reasonably foreseeable — that the owner knew, or should have known, of a credible risk that this kind of violence might occur. This is the heart of our case. Mr. Hsu himself told a local news outlet that Burke had made a racial comment to a prior gardener several years earlier, around 2018. That statement, by the property owner, on the record, before the world, is direct evidence that Hsu knew Burke had animus toward the very class of worker — the landscaper working the rental — whom Hsu was hiring onto the property. A 70-year-old neighbor making racial comments to a worker is a foreseeable precursor to a 70-year-old neighbor shooting a worker of the same ethnicity. We will prove it.

3. The owner breached that duty. The owner could have done a great many things once he knew of Burke’s racial animus: requested a restraining order, contacted the Sheriff’s Department about Burke’s behavior, refused to schedule landscaping work when Burke was known to be agitated, posted warning signs, or simply not hired a worker whom Burke had previously harassed, on a property with no other witness. He did none of these things.

4. The breach caused the death. A jury must find that the owner’s failure to take reasonable protective steps was a substantial factor in bringing about Martin’s death. Given the direct connection between the prior harassment of the prior gardener (2018) and the shooting death of the next gardener (2026) on the same property, by the same neighbor, this is a strong causal chain — and we will lay it out piece by piece.

5. Damages. The four children of Martin Lucas, his spouse or domestic partner, and any other statutory beneficiaries (we will identify them when we meet) suffered the kind of loss that California law recognizes as compensable. We cover damages in detail below.

Target Three: The Vacation Rental Platform (if applicable)

If the vacation rental was listed on a platform like Airbnb, Vrbo, Booking.com, or another online marketplace, the platform may also be a potential defendant under certain theories — but the analysis is more complex. Many platform terms of service include arbitration clauses and limitation-of-liability provisions, and the law around platform liability for third-party criminal acts on listed properties is still developing. The platform is rarely the strongest target in a case like this, but it is worth a careful look. We examine the platform’s role and the listing agreement between Hsu and the platform as part of the standard intake process.

Target Four (Indirect): The Landscaping Company / Direct Employer

The landscaping company that employed Martin Lucas is generally protected by California’s workers’ compensation exclusivity rule — under Labor Code § 3602, an injured worker (or the worker’s survivors in a death case) cannot sue the direct employer in tort for the workplace injury. The remedy is the workers’ comp death benefit, which is capped, scheduled, and almost never comes close to what a wrongful-death verdict would pay.

This is one of the most painful and least-understood aspects of California law, and we want you to hear it from us directly, in plain words, before you read anything else. If you are Martin’s family, the workers’ comp death benefit is real money and you should file for it. Our firm can help you with that filing. But the comp death benefit is not the full measure of what your family lost, and it is not the only remedy available to you. The comp bar exists precisely to push your case out of the comp system and into the third-party tort system — against Burke, against Hsu, and against any other non-employer who is legally responsible. That is where the real money lives, and that is where we work.

California Wrongful Death — The Family’s Right to Be Compensated

The cause of action for wrongful death in California is created by statute. The governing provision is Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60, which gives the heirs and surviving family members the right to bring a civil action for the death of a person caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another.

“A cause of action for the death of a person caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another may be brought by the person’s surviving spouse, domestic partner, children, and issue of deceased children, or, if there is no surviving issue of the deceased, the persons who would inherit the deceased’s property under the laws of intestate succession in this state. The cause of action may be brought by the personal representative of the decedent if the decedent was a resident of this state…” — California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60(a)

The beneficiaries of a California wrongful death action, in order, are:

1. The surviving spouse or domestic partner.
2. The children (Martin’s four children, all of whom are statutory beneficiaries).
3. The issue of any deceased child (i.e., Martin’s grandchildren, if any of his children predeceased him — that does not appear to be the case here).
4. If there are no surviving issue, then those who would inherit under California’s intestate succession laws (this category exists to cover extended family situations).

This case has at least four wrongful-death claimants by statute: Martin’s four children. Each child has an independent right to recover for his or her own losses, and the distribution of any recovery is governed by California’s intestate succession framework — meaning Martin’s estate, through a personal representative, will ultimately distribute the wrongful-death proceeds to the children in the shares set by California law.

The Two-Year Clock on the Civil Case

California’s statute of limitations for wrongful death is two years from the date of death, under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. Martin was pronounced dead on March 16, 2026. That means the family’s wrongful-death civil case must be filed in the appropriate California court no later than March 16, 2028, with very limited exceptions. There is also a six-month claim-presentation requirement against public entities under the California Tort Claims Act (Government Code §§ 810 et seq.) — not directly relevant here because the defendants are private parties, but if a public entity is ever joined (for example, if the Sheriff’s Department failed to act on a prior complaint about Burke), the six-month claim-presentation clock applies, and missing it can destroy a public-entity claim entirely.

For a survival action (described below), the statute of limitations is also two years under Code of Civil Procedure § 366.1 — measured from the date of the injury that caused the death (not the date of death), though there are tolling rules in cases of minority or incapacity.

The two-year clock is a hard rule. Do not assume you have more time than you do. If you are reading this and you have not yet spoken to a wrongful-death lawyer, the most important thing you can do today is make that call.

What Damages Are Recoverable in a California Wrongful Death Action

California wrongful-death damages are organized into two broad categories: economic and non-economic. There is no general cap on wrongful-death damages in California (the only damage cap of general application is the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act cap on medical-malpractice noneconomic damages under Civil Code § 3333.2 — and this case is not a medical-malpractice case). For all other wrongful-death actions, juries may award the full measure of harm, including amounts that run into the millions and tens of millions.

Economic damages are the objectively provable financial losses caused by the death. They include:

• The financial support the deceased would have contributed to the family had he lived, calculated over the rest of his worklife (not just to retirement — California law allows recovery of the full expected support over the decedent’s statistical life expectancy or worklife expectancy, whichever the evidence supports).
• The value of household services the deceased provided — childcare, cooking, home repair, driving, yard work, household management. Even a worker who earned modest wages in landscaping performed irreplaceable work at home. These services are valued using replacement-cost methodology (what it would cost to hire someone to do the same tasks at market rates) or loss-of-service methodology (the market value of the time the family would have had to spend to replace what he did).
• Funeral and burial expenses.
• Loss of gifts and benefits the family would have received.
• The reasonable value of the decedent’s financial support to the family, calculated forward through the worklife expectancy and discounted to present value.

Non-economic damages are the human losses no receipt can measure. They include:

• Loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, and moral support. California courts have repeatedly held that these are the core non-economic injuries in a wrongful-death case, and the measure is the survivor’s loss, not the decedent’s experience. (Krouse v. Graham, 19 Cal. 3d 59 (1977); Crisci v. Security Insurance Co., 66 Cal. 2d 425 (1967).)
• Loss of training and guidance for the children. Martin’s four children lost a father’s guidance, discipline, example, advice, and presence for the rest of their childhoods and into their adult lives. California juries understand this loss, and the verdict form in a wrongful-death case will allow recovery for it.
• Loss of enjoyment of life as the survivors have known it.

The economic damages in this case are anchored in Martin’s actual earnings, his worklife expectancy (a 40-year-old landscaper had decades of working years ahead of him in California), and the value of the household services he provided. The non-economic damages are anchored in the catastrophic, permanent, lifelong impact of a father’s death on four children — an impact that juries in San Diego County, in our experience, do not minimize.

California Survival Action — What Martin Endured

The wrongful-death action belongs to the family. A separate claim, called the survival action, belongs to Martin’s estate and recovers damages for the harm he himself suffered between the moment of the shooting and the moment he was pronounced dead at the scene.

“A cause of action that survives the death of the person entitled to commence an action or proceeding passes to the successor or successors in interest of the person…” — California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.30

In California, the survival action can include:

• Pre-death pain and suffering — the physical pain and the terror Martin experienced from the moment the shots were fired until the moment he died. In a shooting death, this is often a brief but extremely violent period, and the damages compensate Martin personally (through his estate) for what he endured.
• Pre-death medical expenses if any treatment was provided before death.
• Pre-death lost earnings for the brief period between the shooting and the pronouncement of death.
• Punitive damages (described below) — the survival action is the procedural vehicle by which punitive damages flow to the estate in a wrongful-death case.

The survival action is brought by the personal representative of Martin’s estate. A personal representative is appointed either by a will (executor) or, where there is no will, by the probate court (administrator). Our firm routinely handles the appointment of a personal representative in the context of the wrongful-death litigation — and we can move that process efficiently in San Diego County Probate Court.

Punitive Damages — The Racial Animus Is the Centerpiece

California permits punitive damages (also called exemplary damages) where the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.

“(a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” — California Civil Code § 3294(a)

The statute defines malice as “despicable conduct that is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” Oppression is “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” Racial animus, in California, has been found to support both malice and oppression. In Coral Construction, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 235 Cal. App. 4th 1051 (2015), the California Court of Appeal held that evidence of racial slurs and racially hostile comments can support a finding of malice for punitive damages — even where the defendant is a corporate entity.

In our case, the public record already contains the property owner’s statement that Burke made a racial comment to a prior gardener in 2018. That is direct evidence of Burke’s animus. Combined with the fact that the next gardener working that property — a man of the same ethnicity Burke previously targeted — was shot to death eight years later by the same Burke, the malice case is unusually strong. We will pursue punitive damages against Burke personally. We will also explore whether the property owner’s knowledge of that animus, combined with his decision to keep sending workers onto a property with no protective measures, rises to conscious disregard — that is the harder punitive case against Hsu, but the public statement Hsu made is the cornerstone of it.

California has no cap on punitive damages in non-product cases. In a case with a clear racial animus and a violent death, juries have imposed significant punitive awards. The amounts vary widely based on the defendant’s wealth and the egregiousness of the conduct, and California appellate courts apply a comparative-fault and due-process review to the size of the award (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court case setting the constitutional limits on punitive awards — and California courts apply it).

Premises Liability and Negligent Security — The Legal Spine of the Case Against Hsu

We are going to spend time on this section because the case against the property owner is the case that pays. Burke is a moral target but a financial footnote; Hsu (and his insurance) is the financial target that lets a four-children family have a future that is not destroyed by poverty.

The Duty: California Recognizes a Broad Duty of Care

California has never been a state that lets property owners hide behind categorical duty rules. The foundational case is Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968), in which the California Supreme Court abolished the rigid common-law categories of invitee, licensee, and trespasser and replaced them with a general duty of reasonable care owed to all persons on the property. A property owner must act as a reasonable person under the circumstances, and the circumstances include the foreseeability of harm.

Foreseeability is the question. California courts have repeatedly held that a property owner has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect against foreseeable criminal conduct by third parties when the owner has reason to know of a credible risk. The leading case is Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center, 6 Cal. 4th 666 (1993), in which the California Supreme Court held that a property owner owes a duty to protect tenants and invitees from foreseeable criminal acts of third parties where the owner has reasonable cause to anticipate such acts and the probability of injury to the invitee is some substantial factor in the totality of the circumstances.

In Ann M., the Court identified the relevant foreseeability factors as including:

• Prior similar incidents on or near the property.
• The general crime rate in the surrounding neighborhood.
• The presence of physical conditions that might make a crime more likely (poor lighting, lack of security, isolated area).
• Statements or threats made by identifiable potential wrongdoers.

The first factor — prior similar incidents — is the killer. Here, the prior incident is not a generic “neighborhood crime” — it is the same defendant, on the same property, making racial comments to the same kind of worker (a landscaper), in 2018. That is a one-to-one match: Burke previously made a racially hostile comment to a landscaper working on Hsu’s property, and Burke later shot a landscaper working on Hsu’s property to death. Hsu’s own statement to the press is direct evidence of the prior incident, in the property owner’s own words, on the record.

The Breach: Reasonable Steps That Hsu Could Have Taken

The case is not that Hsu had a duty to prevent Burke from doing something Burke had never done before. The case is that Hsu had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect the next landscaper he sent to that property, in light of what Hsu already knew about Burke. The reasonable steps that a property owner in Hsu’s position could and should have taken include:

• Refusing to schedule landscaping work on the property without first notifying Burke through a formal letter and a request that Burke stay away from the work area during scheduled work times.
• Asking the Sheriff’s Department to perform extra patrols during scheduled work times, and documenting that request.
• Having a representative of the rental or the property owner present during scheduled work, so that no worker would be alone on the property with Burke.
• Installing security cameras with visible signage.
• Posting “No Trespassing” signage specifically directed at Burke if Burke was not a guest of the property.
• In the strongest case, pursuing a restraining order against Burke under California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6 (the civil harassment restraining order statute), which is available where a person has been harassed on the basis of race, and which is a recognized tool for protecting against the kind of escalating racial violence that occurred here.
• Ceasing to use the property as a vacation rental if the only way to protect workers was to stop putting them at risk.

The property owner did none of these things. We will show the jury what reasonable care looked like, what Hsu knew, and what Hsu chose to do instead.

Causation: From Prior Comments to Death

California’s causation standard in a negligent-security case is substantial factor — the defendant’s failure to act must be a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. (Ladd v. County of San Mateo, 12 Cal. 4th 913 (1996).) The defense will argue that Burke, not Hsu, caused the death, and that Hsu’s actions were too remote. The response is that Hsu’s failure to act was a substantial factor because it left Martin Lucas, a worker Hsu had personally placed on the property, alone and unprotected in front of a man Hsu knew had racial animus toward the very kind of worker Martin was. Hsu created the conditions for the foreseeable harm, and the death flowed from those conditions. The substantial-factor test does not require that Hsu’s negligence be the only cause or even the primary cause — it requires only that it be a substantial factor. We will meet that standard with the same set of facts we are using for breach and duty.

The Workers’ Compensation Bar and Why We Sue Around It

California’s workers’ compensation system is the exclusive remedy against the direct employer for a workplace injury or death. Labor Code § 3602(a) says the workers’ compensation remedies “are in lieu of any other civil action” against the employer. That means Martin Lucas’s family cannot sue the landscaping company for wrongful death in tort — their remedy against the employer is the workers’ comp death benefit.

This is not a defeat; it is a fork. The workers’ compensation system, by design, excludes the employer from tort liability — and preserves the right to sue everyone else who is legally responsible for the death. That is the third-party tort claim we bring against Burke, against Hsu, and against any other non-employer who contributed. The comp system channels the case to the people who actually bear the responsibility, and the comp system does not limit our ability to pursue them.

The comp death benefit itself is a fixed statutory amount under California Labor Code §§ 4700 and 4702, based on the number of total dependents and the decedent’s earnings. The cap is currently in the high-five-figure to low-six-figure range. It is a fraction of what a wrongful-death verdict can pay. Our firm handles the comp filing as part of the overall case, so the family does not have to fight two systems at once — we coordinate the comp claim and the wrongful-death claim to maximize total recovery and avoid any procedural mistake that could compromise either.

The Evidence That Exists, Who Holds It, and How Fast It Can Disappear

Wrongful-death cases live or die on the evidence that exists at the start and the speed with which it disappears. Below is a full evidence clock for this incident. Every single piece of evidence on this list is at risk of being altered, overwritten, deleted, lost, or “unavailable” within days to months. The preservation letter we send the day you hire us names every one of these items specifically and demands they be preserved. Once a defendant knows the family has hired counsel, the duty to preserve attaches in California and the failure to preserve can be the basis for spoliation sanctions under California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 and the Court’s inherent authority.

Evidence held by law enforcement (San Diego County Sheriff’s Department and the District Attorney’s Office):

• Sheriff’s incident report and supplemental reports. The Sheriff’s Department responded to the scene and generated the official report. This is the foundational record of the scene, the dispatch, the deputies’ observations, the recovery of evidence, and the initial interviews. Held by the Sheriff’s Department and the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office. Retention is durable (years), but specific photographs, audio, and supplemental materials can be purged on a rolling schedule if not preserved.
• 911 audio recordings. The 911 dispatch call(s) — the voice of whoever called, the dispatcher, the sound of the scene in the background. Held by the Sheriff’s Department. Audio recordings are often retained for limited periods (commonly 6 months to 2 years, depending on the agency), and they are among the most time-sensitive items in the case. Preservation demand goes out the day you call.
• Crime scene photographs, video, and diagrams. Held by the Sheriff’s Department and the crime lab. The physical scene (a Fallbrook vacation rental on Avo Drive) is finite — the scene has been released or will be released to the property owner, and a single walk-through by an insurance adjuster or a contractor can alter it forever.
• Ballistics evidence. The firearms, ammunition, casings, and trajectory analysis. Held by the San Diego County Sheriff’s crime lab and transferred to the District Attorney as the criminal case proceeds. Critical to linking Burke to the specific rounds that killed Martin.
• Autopsy report (from the San Diego County Medical Examiner’s Office). The official cause and manner of death, with detailed injury documentation. Held by the Medical Examiner (a County of San Diego office). This is the medical backbone of the case.
• Witness statements (the surviving landscaper, neighbors, anyone who heard or saw anything). Held by the Sheriff’s Department. Memories fade; first statements are the most powerful.
• Burke’s own statements to law enforcement (post-Miranda, if any). Held by the District Attorney’s Office as part of the criminal case file. Subject to the Fifth Amendment in the criminal case; civil discovery is broader — the family can pursue Burke’s statements in the civil case, including his statements about animus toward workers, the prior incident with the other gardener, and his conduct on the night of the shooting.

Evidence held by the property owner (Alan Hsu) and his representatives:

• Surveillance video from the vacation rental. Most vacation rentals do not have working security cameras, but some do, and some have doorbell cameras (Ring, Nest, etc.) that may have captured Burke’s approach or the shooting. Held by Hsu, his property manager, and the camera manufacturer (Amazon/Ring, Google/Nest, etc.) in cloud storage. Cloud-stored video is routinely overwritten on a rolling 30- to 60-day cycle, depending on the user’s storage plan. This is the single most time-sensitive evidence in the case. The preservation letter to Hsu names this specifically and to the camera manufacturers in parallel.
• Reservation and guest records for the vacation rental. Who was staying at the property the night of the shooting. Whether any guest was present, heard shots, or has relevant video. Held by Hsu and by the rental platform if the property was listed. Highly perishable in terms of the guests’ memories and contact information.
• Hsu’s communications with the landscaping company. The contract, the scheduling, the work order. Held by Hsu and the company. These may show that Hsu scheduled work, that no security was provided, and that prior complaints or incidents were discussed.
• Any prior complaints or incident reports at the property, including the 2018 racial comment by Burke. Held by Hsu and any property manager.
• Hsu’s insurance policy. The homeowner’s, landlord, or vacation-rental liability policy that will be the actual source of recovery. Held by Hsu and his insurance carrier. The policy itself is a discovery target, and the carrier will provide a defense once tendered.

Evidence held by the landscaping company and the second worker:

• The employment and dispatch records showing the crew was scheduled to work at the property on March 16, 2026, after dark, alone.
• The surviving landscaper’s testimony and contemporaneous statements — the single most important eyewitness account of the shooting itself, of who fired the shots, of the conduct of Burke before and after, and of the conditions at the property.
• Texts, calls, and messages between the crew and the property owner, the company, and each other.

Evidence held by Burke (if he cooperates) and his household:

• Burke’s own statements to family, neighbors, or anyone before or after the shooting, including any statements about his animus toward workers, his prior confrontation with the 2018 gardener, his feelings about the property or the neighborhood, and his conduct on the night of the shooting.
• Burke’s firearms. Critical to show that the shooting was intentional, not accidental.
• Burke’s medical and mental health history, to the extent relevant to intent and to a California diminished-capacity defense (Burke’s age, cognitive state, and history of paranoid ideation would all be relevant if they are part of the criminal proceedings and the civil discovery).

Evidence held by the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office and the criminal defense team:

• The entire criminal case file — evidence, witness statements, forensic reports, recorded jail calls, and the like. The family has a victim’s rights advocate through the District Attorney’s Office and a Marsy’s Card in California (California Constitution, Article I, § 28(b)), giving the family constitutional rights to be heard, to receive information, and to attend proceedings. Our firm coordinates with the criminal case — we do not duplicate it, and we do not interfere with it — but we use the criminal discovery to build the civil case.

Evidence held by social media and online platforms:

• Burke’s social media accounts (Facebook, Instagram, Nextdoor, etc.) for any statements about the property, the workers, the neighborhood, or the incident. Held by the user and by the platforms. Preservation demand goes out the day you hire us. The platforms can be compelled to preserve, but not indefinitely — California Preservation Letters under Evidence Code § 1540 et seq. (the state analog of the federal Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2703) and direct court orders are needed.
• Online reviews or listings of the vacation rental on Airbnb, Vrbo, Booking.com, Google Maps, Yelp, or elsewhere, showing how the property is marketed and what representations are made about safety.

The clock summary:

The single most important thing we do in the first 72 hours is send a written preservation demand to every holder of evidence on this list. That demand is what converts routine retention cycles into a legal obligation to preserve. The letter goes out the day you call.

Insurance Coverage — Where the Money Actually Is

Families often ask: “If the shooter is broke, is there any point?” The answer is yes, and the reason is the insurance. A wrongful-death case is only as good as the coverage behind the defendants. Here is the picture:

Hsu’s insurance portfolio (the primary recovery source). A property owner in California who rents a vacation property typically carries three relevant policies:

• Homeowner’s insurance. Standard homeowners forms (HO-3, HO-5, etc.) include a personal liability component that covers non-business activities on the property. The personal-liability coverage is typically in the $300,000 to $500,000 range. Critically, homeowner’s insurance in California almost always contains an intentional-acts exclusion that voids coverage for harm the insured intended — but the negligent-security claim against Hsu is NOT an intentional-acts claim. Hsu is being sued for his own negligence (failure to protect workers he knew were at risk of racial violence by a known neighbor), not for Burke’s intentional act. The intentional-acts exclusion does not apply to Hsu’s negligence, and the homeowner’s personal-liability coverage should respond to the negligent-security claim.
• Landlord / Dwelling Fire / Vacation Rental policy. Many vacation-rental owners carry a separate landlord or dwelling-fire policy designed for short-term rental use, often with liability limits of $1 million or more. This is the policy that is most likely to pay the wrongful-death verdict in our case. Some vacation-rental platforms (Airbnb, Vrbo) require their hosts to carry such coverage at specific limits — we will pull the listing agreement and the platform’s host requirements at intake to confirm.
• Umbrella / Excess liability. A property owner with significant assets often carries an umbrella policy that sits above the homeowner’s or rental policy and provides additional coverage in the millions. This is the layer that turns a $1 million verdict into a fully collectible one.

Burke’s insurance. Burke is the wrongdoer, but his insurance is the wrongdoer’s insurance. The intentional-acts exclusion (often labeled “expected or intended injury exclusion”) in standard homeowner’s policies means Burke’s homeowner’s policy will almost certainly refuse to indemnify him for shooting a landscaper. We will make that denial a fact in the case — a jury that learns Burke’s homeowner’s insurer will not pay his judgment sees the personal accountability that punitive damages are designed to enforce.

The landscaping company’s insurance. The direct employer’s commercial general liability policy may provide a defense and indemnification for the employer in the workers’ comp proceeding, but it generally does not provide coverage for third-party tort claims against the employer arising from the workplace injury (because the comp bar means there is no tort claim against the employer). The landscaping company’s CGL may still be relevant if it covers the employer’s vicarious liability for the actions of its employees — but the comp bar largely removes the employer from the tort case.

The vacation rental platform’s insurance. If the property was listed on a major platform, the platform typically maintains a Host Protection Insurance program or an equivalent that provides some level of liability coverage to the host (Hsu) and indemnification for the host in the event of a third-party claim. The platform’s program is generally secondary to the host’s own insurance and applies after the host’s primary policy is exhausted. The program is also generally subject to exclusions (including for criminal acts by third parties, but again, the negligent-security theory against Hsu is not a third-party criminal-act claim against the platform — it is a claim about how the property was operated and protected).

The bottom line. The recovery architecture is: Hsu’s primary rental/homeowner’s policy → Hsu’s umbrella → the platform’s host-protection program (if applicable) → Burke’s personal assets. In a wrongful-death case with a 40-year-old decedent, four children, and punitive damages on the table, the realistic primary recovery source is the rental/homeowner’s policy with limits of $1 million or more, supported by an umbrella layer. The numbers must be evaluated case-by-case and at the time of tender — the dollar figures can change with the policy year and the carrier. We will pull every policy and tender the claim to every carrier within the first 30 days of retention.

The Insurance Adjuster Playbook — Three Plays and Our Counters

The insurance industry handles shooting deaths with a standard playbook. We have seen every move. Here are the three plays they run, and how we counter each.

Play One: The Friendly Call. Within days of the shooting, a “claims specialist” or “claims adjuster” representing Hsu’s homeowner’s or rental carrier will call the family. The call will sound sympathetic. The adjuster will say things like: “We’re so sorry for your loss. We’re here to help. We just want to understand what happened.” The adjuster will then ask leading questions designed to get the family member to say things that can later be used to limit or deny the claim: “Did Martin have any other health issues?” “Did he work a lot of overtime?” “Did you know he was working in Fallbrook that night?” Counter: Do not give a recorded or unrecorded statement to the insurance company without your lawyer present. Refer every call to Attorney911. We will conduct the communication with the carrier through formal channels, in writing, under California Insurance Code protections. Insurance adjusters are not on your side. The adjuster who calls to “check in” is taking statements to limit the company’s exposure.

Play Two: The Quick Check with a Release. Within weeks, the carrier may offer a fast, modest payment — sometimes as little as a few thousand dollars — in exchange for a signed release of all claims. The release is typically printed on the back of the check, in fine print, and the family is told this is a “sympathy” or “final-expense” payment. Counter: A release signed in grief, before the full scope of the loss is known, will permanently bar the family from recovering for the children’s loss of guidance, Martin’s pre-death pain and suffering, and punitive damages. Never sign a release without your lawyer reviewing it. We will return any quick-check money and demand the carrier honor the full measure of California’s wrongful-death damages.

Play Three: The Comparative Fault Push. The carrier’s defense counsel will argue that Martin “should not have been working at that location,” that “the landscaping company should have provided security,” that “the family should have known the area was risky,” or that Martin “assumed the risk.” These arguments are designed to push California’s pure comparative fault rule (under Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal. 3d 804 (1972), and its progeny) to attribute a percentage of fault to Martin or to the landscaping company, reducing recovery. Counter: Comparative fault is real under California law, and we will prepare to meet it head-on. Martin was a working man doing his job in a place his employer told him to be. The danger was not open and obvious, and Martin did not assume the risk of being shot by a neighbor the property owner knew had racial animus. We will build the case that the entire fault lies with Burke and with Hsu, and we will defeat any attempt to blame the victim. If the carrier tries to blame the landscaping company, we have the comp bar in our pocket — that fault percentage goes to a party the family cannot sue, and California law (under Wilson v. Ritto*, 93 Cal. App. 4th 262 (2001), and the Prop 51 multiple-defendant rule under Civil Code § 1431.2) is clear that a defendant is only severally liable for its own proportionate share** of non-economic damages, not for the share of a co-defendant the family cannot reach.

“The liability of each defendant for non-economic damages shall be several only and shall not be joint. Each defendant shall be liable only for the amount of non-economic damages attributable to that defendant’s own proven percentage of fault…” — California Civil Code § 1431.2(a) (Proposition 51)

Prop 51 is your protection against the carrier’s attempt to dilute the recovery by blaming someone else.

What This Case Is Worth — An Honest Assessment

We are not going to promise a number. We are not going to quote a jury verdict we have not yet won. We are going to tell you, based on the facts as we understand them, the range that a California wrongful-death case of this kind can reach, and the variables that move the needle.

Economic damages: A 40-year-old landscaper had a statistical worklife expectancy extending into his 60s. A forensic economist will project his past earnings, his expected wage growth, his likely career trajectory in the California landscaping industry, the value of the employer-paid benefits (health insurance, retirement, paid leave) he would have provided, and the value of his household services to a family of four children. Depending on the assumptions, the economic loss in a case like this routinely reaches the low- to mid-seven-figure range before considering non-economic damages.

Non-economic damages: California’s no-cap regime for wrongful death (with the medical-malpractice carve-out that does not apply here) and the loss of a father to four children — including loss of guidance and training, which California juries treat as a profound, lifelong, incalculable injury — supports non-economic awards that, on verdicts in the San Diego County and Southern California market, regularly reach the seven-figure range and in cases with strong facts and skilled trial work can reach eight figures.

Punitive damages: A finding of malice (which we believe is well-supported here) supports a punitive award. California’s due-process review (State Farm v. Campbell) and the comparative-fault rules (Prop 51) cap the practical size of a punitive award, but a substantial punitive award is available on these facts.

The case-value range that an experienced California wrongful-death firm would put on a case of this kind, with these facts, is generally in the range of several million dollars to eight figures, with the upper end reachable only with strong liability proof, strong damages proof, and a willing insurance carrier. Specific numbers depend on the policy limits, the defendants’ personal assets, and the strength of the proof. We do not and will not promise a number — that is a promise no honest firm can make. We will tell you the realistic range, the variables, and the insurance picture as soon as we have reviewed the policy, the defendants’ assets, and the case-specific economic projections.

Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.

The First 72 Hours — Your Action Plan

Here is what we do, in the order we do it, in the first 72 hours after a family in your position calls us. This is not a “we have already done it” — this is what happens the day you engage us. It is also what you can begin doing right now, on your own, to protect the case.

Hour 1: The Preservation Demand Goes Out. The same business day you retain us, we send a written litigation-hold letter to (a) Alan Hsu, (b) the property manager (if any), (c) the camera manufacturers (Ring/Amazon, Google/Nest, etc.), (d) the landscaping company, (e) the Sheriff’s Department, and (f) the District Attorney’s Office (in the form of a victim’s rights preservation request). The letter names every category of evidence on the lists above and demands it be preserved. Do not wait to call us. The clock on the cloud-stored video started the moment the shooting happened.

Hour 24: The Wrongful Death Claim is Opened with the Insurance Carrier. We identify Hsu’s homeowner’s, rental, and umbrella carriers. We tender a written claim under each policy, providing the basic facts, the policy information, and the demand that the carrier put a coverage investigation in place. The tender triggers the carrier’s duty to defend (in many policies) and the duty to investigate in good faith under California Insurance Code § 790.03 (the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act). Bad-faith handling of the claim by the carrier after tender is itself a separate cause of action in California (Egan v. Mutual of Omaha, 24 Cal. 3d 809 (1979)) and can support a separate bad-faith damages claim, including punitive damages for the carrier’s bad faith.

Hour 24–48: The Workers’ Compensation Death Claim is Filed. We file the comp death-benefit claim on behalf of the family. This is a separate proceeding, but filing it preserves the family’s right to the comp death benefit and ensures that the comp system and the civil system run in parallel, not in conflict. The comp filing does not slow down the civil case.

Day 2–3: The Defendant Investigation Begins. We pull Hsu’s ownership and business records, the listing agreement, the property-management agreement (if any), the platform’s host-protection program terms, the landscaping contract, Burke’s criminal docket (the San Diego County Superior Court case number is a matter of public record and the file is open), and any prior incidents involving Burke or the property. We retain a security expert to testify on foreseeability and industry standards for vacation-rental properties in rural San Diego County. We retain a forensic economist to begin the life-care and lost-earnings workup. We retain an interpreter and culturally competent investigator if needed for the family and the surviving landscaper — language access is not a courtesy; it is a part of how we build a trustworthy record.

Day 3–7: The Surviving Landscaper Interview. The second victim is the only eyewitness to the shooting itself. We will sit down with him — through counsel if he is already represented, or directly if he is not — to record his account while the memory is fresh. We will also connect him with counseling resources and, if he is willing, coordinate with the District Attorney’s Office to ensure his civil and criminal interests are aligned.

Week 2: The Complaint is Filed in San Diego County Superior Court. We file the wrongful-death complaint naming Burke, Hsu, and any additional defendants the investigation reveals. The complaint triggers formal discovery, and the litigation is now a public record — which is often when the insurance carrier stops playing games and starts talking real numbers.

Month 2–6: Discovery, Depositions, and Mediation. We exchange evidence, take depositions of Hsu, Burke (if available), the surviving landscaper, the property manager, and the corporate representatives. We retain expert witnesses and exchange expert reports. We participate in court-ordered mediation. The criminal case proceeds in parallel — and the criminal conviction (or guilty plea) of Burke will be admissible in the civil case as collateral estoppel under California Evidence Code § 1302 (issue preclusion in a criminal case binds a civil defendant who had a full and fair opportunity to litigate), giving the family a powerful conviction-based anchor for civil liability.

How Our Team Builds These Cases

Attorney911 is built for this work. We are The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC, and we are a trial firm — not a settlement mill. We do not route your case through junior associates you never meet. We do not farm out the trial to a contractor. The lawyers you hire are the lawyers who go to court.

Ralph P. Manginello is our Managing Partner. He has been licensed in Texas since 1998 (27+ years at the bar), is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and is a member of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, the Houston Bar Association, the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the Pro Bono College of the State Bar of Texas. Before law school, Ralph was a journalist — a UT Austin journalism graduate who reported on the systems that failed the people he now represents in court. He has tried cases across the civil-criminal boundary, including catastrophic-injury and wrongful-death cases for over two decades. He brings to your case the calm of a long courtroom career and the sharp eye of a man who spent his twenties asking the questions the institutions didn’t want asked.

Lupe Peña is our Associate Attorney. He was a finance professional before law school, and he spent years on the other side of the bar — defending insurance companies, working inside a national insurance defense firm, learning how Colossus software values claims, how independent medical examiners are selected, how surveillance is conducted, and how delay is used as a tactic. He now uses that inside knowledge on your side. Lupe is fluent in Spanish — and in a case involving a Guatemalan immigrant father, that fluency is not symbolic; it is operational. He can take your family’s statement, walk the surviving landscaper through what happened, and conduct the whole case in the language you actually speak. Lupe is licensed in Texas (2012) and admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and he works California cases with California local counsel where required by California’s rules of professional conduct.

The two of us — Ralph and Lupe — work every case together. You get the firm, not a silo. We do not get paid unless we recover for you. The contingency fee is 33.33% before trial and 40% if the case goes to trial. The consultation is free. The case costs are advanced by the firm and recovered out of the recovery. If we do not recover for you, you owe us nothing for the lawyer time, and we eat the case costs.

If you are ready, the next step is a call. 1-888-ATTY-911. That line is staffed 24/7. A real person answers. We will talk to you, in English or in Spanish, about what happened, what the next 72 hours should look like, and whether our firm is the right fit for your family. If we are not — if a different firm has a specialist better suited to the specific facts of your case — we will tell you that too, and we will help you find the right lawyers. The criminal case is a separate decision, and the family may want a criminal-justice advocate in addition to our civil representation. We will help you sort that out.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long do I have to file a wrongful-death case in California?

Two years from the date of death, under California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. Martin was pronounced dead on March 16, 2026. The filing deadline is March 16, 2028. There are very limited exceptions. Do not wait. If you are reading this and have not yet retained counsel, make the call this week.

Can I sue the shooter if he has no money or insurance?

Yes, and you should. The judgment against the shooter serves three purposes: it is the personal accountability the survivor’s family deserves, it preserves the full scope of liability against the property owner, and it can be collected against any non-exempt assets the shooter has now or in the future (including future wages, with limitations under California law, and any non-excluded insurance). Most homeowner’s policies exclude intentional acts, but we will look at every possible coverage source, including any umbrella policy the shooter may carry.

Can I sue the property owner even though he didn’t fire the gun?

Yes, in California, on a negligent-security theory. Property owners in California have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect people lawfully on the property from foreseeable third-party criminal acts. The 2018 racial comment by the shooter toward a prior gardener — a fact the property owner himself acknowledged to the press — is direct evidence that the violence was foreseeable, and that the property owner had a duty to act and failed to.

What is the difference between a wrongful-death claim and a survival action in California?

A wrongful-death claim belongs to the family and compensates the family for their own losses (loss of support, loss of companionship, loss of guidance, funeral expenses). A survival action belongs to the decedent’s estate and compensates Martin himself for the pain and suffering he experienced between the shooting and the pronouncement of death. The survival action is also the procedural vehicle that allows punitive damages to flow to the estate. We file both.

How much is a case like this worth in California?

The honest answer is that we cannot promise a number before we have done the work — the policy limits, the defendants’ assets, the specific economic projections, and the strength of the liability proof all matter. A California wrongful-death case involving a 40-year-old with four children and strong liability evidence can realistically reach the seven-figure range, with the upper end in the eight figures reachable in cases with strong punitive exposure. We will give you a realistic range once we have the information.

What if Martin was an undocumented immigrant? Does that affect the case?

No. California’s wrongful-death statute, Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60, does not condition the family’s right to recover on the decedent’s immigration status. California courts have repeatedly held that immigration status is not a bar to a wrongful-death claim and is generally not admissible at trial for the purpose of reducing damages. The family has the same rights as the family of any other California worker.

Will the workers’ compensation system pay anything, and does it affect the civil case?

Yes, the comp system pays a death benefit under California Labor Code §§ 4700 and 4702, and we will help you file for it. The comp system does not bar the civil case against the property owner or the shooter — in fact, the workers’ comp exclusivity rule (Labor Code § 3602) is what protects your right to sue the third parties by closing the door on the direct employer. The two systems run in parallel.

How long will this take?

The honest answer is that a wrongful-death case of this complexity takes 12 to 36 months in most cases — sometimes longer if the criminal case is still proceeding and we are coordinating the civil discovery with the District Attorney’s office, sometimes shorter if the insurance carrier tender is reasonable. We will give you a realistic timeline at intake and update it honestly as the case moves. We do not make promises about speed we cannot keep.

Will my family have to testify in court?

Possibly. If the case settles, no testimony is usually required. If the case goes to trial, the surviving family members may be asked to testify about their loss — Martin’s relationship with his children, the daily rhythms of their life together, what has been lost. We prepare you for that. We sit with you. We do not put you on the witness stand without your understanding and your consent. And we do not let the defense attorney reduce your family to a number — you are the reason this case exists.

What does it cost to hire Attorney911?

Nothing upfront. We work on contingency. The consultation is free, the case evaluation is free, and you pay no attorney fee unless we recover for you. The contingency fee is 33.33% of the gross recovery before trial and 40% if the case goes to verdict. Case costs (filing fees, expert fees, deposition costs, medical record retrieval) are advanced by the firm and recovered out of the recovery at the end. If we do not win, you owe us nothing for our time, and the firm absorbs the case costs.

What if the property owner says the landscaper was trespassing?

The defense will try. It will not work. A worker performing contracted services on a property at the direction of his employer and with the property owner’s knowledge and consent is not a trespasser — he is an invitee under California premises-liability law, or, under the broader Rowland v. Christian duty analysis, a person to whom the property owner owes a duty of reasonable care regardless of category. Even if the worker were on the property at a time the owner did not expect, the property owner had a duty not to let an identified dangerous neighbor near him.

Will the criminal case affect the civil case?

The criminal case is a separate proceeding, but it works in your favor. A criminal conviction (whether by jury verdict or guilty plea) of Burke is admissible in the civil case as collateral estoppel under California Evidence Code § 1302, meaning the jury in the civil case can be told that Burke was already found guilty of the murder, and the civil jury cannot relitigate the question of whether Burke fired the shots. The criminal case also creates leverage in the civil settlement discussions.

I am not the deceased’s spouse — I am his sister/brother/parent. Can I bring the case?

Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60, the primary beneficiaries are the surviving spouse, domestic partner, children, and issue of deceased children. If there is no surviving spouse or issue, the case may be brought by the persons who would inherit under California’s intestate succession laws, which can include parents and siblings in some circumstances. We need to talk to you specifically about your family situation to answer this question — it is not one we can answer in a paragraph. Call us at 1-888-ATTY-911.

Hablamos Español?

Sí. Attorney911 conducts consultations and case work in English and in Spanish. Lupe Peña is a fluent Spanish-speaking attorney. If you are more comfortable in Spanish, your intake, your statement, your case strategy, and your updates will all be delivered in Spanish. Hablamos Español, y lo hablamos en serio.

What if I already have a criminal-case advocate or victim-assistance worker?

Good. Keep them. The criminal case and the civil case are parallel and complementary. We work cooperatively with victim advocates and with the District Attorney’s Office, and we do not duplicate their work. We will coordinate with them so that your family does not have to tell your story twice and so that your criminal and civil interests are aligned.

What if I live outside California — can Attorney911 still represent me?

Yes. We represent California families from wherever they live, and we have done so. The civil case is filed in California (San Diego County Superior Court) because that is where the incident occurred, and we handle the California proceedings with California local counsel where required. You do not need to live in California for us to represent you.

What should I do RIGHT NOW, today, if I just lost a family member in this incident?

Three things. First, preserve what you can — screenshots of any property listing, any social media posts by or about the property or the shooter, any texts between you and your family member or between the property owner and anyone. Second, do not give a recorded or unrecorded statement to any insurance adjuster without your lawyer present — refer every call to us. Third, call us at 1-888-ATTY-911. We are available 24/7. The first call is free. The preservation letter we send that same day may be the single most important thing that happens in your case.

If you have read this far, you have earned the right to hear us say what we believe. We believe Martin’s family deserves a civil recovery that funds his children’s education, secures their home, and gives his widow the time and the means to grieve without financial collapse. We believe the property owner who knew about the racial animus and did nothing should be held to account in a California courtroom, in front of a San Diego County jury, with the full evidence of his prior knowledge on the table. We believe the criminal case against Burke is a separate, important fight that we will not interfere with — but that the civil case is the only fight that can put money in the hands of Martin’s children, and that money is the only form of accountability the civil system can deliver.

We are ready to do that work. Call us at 1-888-ATTY-911. The consultation is free. We do not get paid unless we recover for you. Hablamos Español. And if you are not ready to call yet, take care of yourself first — eat, sleep, and let your family be with you. The legal system will still be there when you are ready.

— Ralph P. Manginello, Managing Partner, and Lupe Peña, Associate Attorney, Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC

Serving California families in wrongful death, premises liability, and negligent security matters. Houston-based trial firm; California matters handled with local counsel as required by the California State Bar rules for out-of-state counsel. 1-888-ATTY-911 · Contact us through our intake line · Learn more about our wrongful death practice, our workplace injury practice, and our insurance-claim practice · Meet Ralph Manginello and Lupe Peña · Explore all of our practice areas