You or Someone You Love Was Shot at a Hollywood Hills Super Bowl Party. Here Is What the Law Actually Does for You.
It is 1 a.m. Your phone rings. The person on the other end is at Cedars-Sinai, or UCLA Medical Center, or LAC+USC. Two men in their twenties — strangers to you, or your son, or your brother — went to a Super Bowl party at a rented house in the 1600 block of North Crescent Heights Boulevard in the Hollywood Hills. Somewhere around midnight, gunfire erupted. Two victims are hospitalized in stable condition. Two loaded guns were recovered from the back of the home. Two possible suspects are being detained.
You are not a “victim” in the colloquial sense — you are a person whose body has been penetrated by a bullet, or you are the person who got the call. You are sitting in a waiting room, or you are sitting in your own kitchen staring at your phone, and the questions are stacking up faster than anyone can answer them.
This page is built for you — the injured party and the family — by Attorney911 (The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC). We take cases like this across California. We have spent decades holding property owners, short-term-rental operators, and negligent-security defendants accountable in California state and federal courts. We work these cases on contingency — no fee unless we win — and the first call is free.
What follows is the complete legal roadmap: what California law says about a property owner’s duty to protect you from gun violence on premises the owner knew was dangerous, what evidence is already dying on servers as you read this, what the insurance company will try to do to your case in the next 72 hours, and what this kind of case is honestly worth in California. We are going to teach you everything the other side knows, because that is how you stop the other side from using it against you.
The Legal Foundation: California Premises Liability and the Duty to Protect Against Foreseeable Criminal Acts
California law in this area is built on Rowland v. Christian, 8 Cal.3d 248 (1973), the case that demolished the old common-law trichotomy of invitee/licensee/trespasser and replaced it with a single, unified rule: a possessor of land owes a duty of reasonable care to all persons on the land, regardless of their status. The duty is calibrated to the foreseeability of the harm and the relationship between the parties.
For criminal acts by third parties — like shooters at a party — California courts have built a specific framework on top of Rowland. The rule, in its modern form, is straightforward: a property owner has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect people on the property from foreseeable criminal conduct by third parties when the owner has notice of prior similar criminal incidents on or near the property. That rule is the spine of every negligent-security case we file in California.
What does “reasonable steps” mean in the context of a Super Bowl party at a short-term rental in the Hollywood Hills? It depends on what the owner knew and what was reasonably available. But the universe of options is not a mystery — it includes things like:
- Verifying the booking was for an actual residence, not a commercial event venue.
- Requiring the renter to disclose the size and nature of the event.
- Refusing bookings above a certain headcount that exceeds the home’s actual occupancy.
- Hiring security personnel for events above a threshold.
- Installing or maintaining security cameras that actually monitor the property.
- Providing adequate exterior lighting.
- Securing exterior doors and windows with quality locks.
- Screening guests for weapons at entry.
- Maintaining a guest list and prohibiting open invitations.
- Posting rules and enforcing them against the renter.
- Refusing to re-rent to anyone who previously held a violent event at the property.
None of these measures is exotic. None is expensive relative to the rental income a party-house operator collects. They are the ordinary precautions a reasonable owner takes when the property is being used for the kind of event that draws the kind of crowd that draws the kind of violence the owner already knows has happened at the property.
If the owner took none of them — or took them and ignored them — the owner is negligent. And in California, that negligence is actionable.
The “But They Shared Fault” Defense and Why It Does Not Save the Defendant in California
The defense will almost certainly argue that the victims shared responsibility for what happened — that they were drinking, that they were at a late-night party, that they put themselves in a risky environment, that they should have known better than to be at a party house in the Hollywood Hills during Super Bowl weekend. In many states, that argument works. In California, it does not.
California adopted pure comparative negligence in Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975), and that rule governs every negligence case filed in this state. Under pure comparative negligence, a plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault — but it is never completely barred, no matter how high that percentage climbs. A plaintiff who is 99% at fault still recovers 1% of the damages. A plaintiff who is 50% at fault recovers 50%. The old contributory-negligence bar — the rule that any fault by the plaintiff kills the case — does not exist in California.
This matters enormously in a case like this. The defense will try to use the party context to push fault onto the victims. We will counter by pointing the finger back at the property owner, who had actual notice of the danger, controlled access to the premises, profited from the rental, and failed to take any of the reasonable precautions that would have prevented the shooting or mitigated its consequences. The jury will apportion fault across everyone — but in California, our clients get to walk out of the courtroom with something, no matter what.
We also want to be clear about one thing: the victims of a shooting are not “at fault” for being shot. Being at a Super Bowl party is not contributory negligence. Drinking at a party is not contributory negligence. The argument that the victims “assumed the risk” by being at a party is not a recognized defense to a negligent-security claim under California law — the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies to sporting and recreational activities, not to attending a private event as a paying guest.
The Insurance-Adjuster Playbook — Three Moves They Will Make and How We Counter Each One
Once the property owner’s insurance carrier gets the claim, a claims handler will be assigned. That handler works for the insurance company, not for you. The handler’s job is to pay you as little as possible. The playbook is predictable, and so is our counter.
Move One: The “Sympathy and Delay” Call. Within days of the shooting, an adjuster will call — often the victim’s family, sometimes the victim directly if they are out of the hospital — and express deep concern for the victim’s wellbeing. The adjuster will say things like “we just want to make sure you’re getting the care you need” and “we want to resolve this fairly.” The adjuster will then ask, very gently, for a recorded statement about what happened that night. The adjuster will ask about alcohol, drug use, prior criminal history of the victim, immigration status, mental health history, and whether the victim has already spoken to a lawyer.
The counter is absolute: do not give a recorded statement. Do not sign anything. Direct the adjuster to us. A recorded statement taken within 72 hours of a shooting, while the victim is still on pain medication and emotionally overwhelmed, is a weapon that will be used against the victim for the rest of the case. There is no benefit to the victim in giving that statement — and there is enormous potential harm.
Move Two: The “Quick Check” Offer. Within weeks, the insurance company will offer a small settlement — often framed as “we know you have medical bills and we want to help with immediate expenses.” The number will be enough to cover a couple of ER visits and maybe a month of lost wages. It will arrive with a release — a document that, once signed, permanently bars the victim from pursuing any further claim, no matter how serious the long-term consequences turn out to be.
The counter is the life-care-planning approach. A gunshot wound in a person in their twenties is not a one-and-done injury. There may be surgeries ahead. There will be physical therapy. There may be permanent nerve damage, scarring, range-of-motion loss, psychological injury (PTSD is common after being shot — see our guide on PTSD payouts after a car accident for the medical basis), and lost earning capacity over a 40-to-50-year career. A quick check that looks generous in March looks insulting in December when the second surgery is scheduled. Do not sign a release without understanding the full lifetime cost of the injury.
Move Three: The “Comparative Fault” Letter. Once discovery begins, the insurance defense will send a letter or file a motion arguing that the victim shared substantial fault for the shooting — that the victim was intoxicated, that the victim was engaged in some kind of altercation that led to the shooting, that the victim’s own conduct caused or contributed to the harm. Under California’s pure comparative negligence rule, this argument reduces but does not bar recovery. We counter by pointing the finger where it belongs — at the property owner who knew the property was dangerous and rented it out anyway.
The defense will also try to characterize the shooting as a “criminal act by a third party” for which the property owner is not responsible. California law forecloses this argument when the criminal act was foreseeable. A property with a documented prior robbery, rented out for a Super Bowl party, with no security measures in place — that is foreseeable. We will present the prior-incident record, the lack of security, the absence of any meaningful screening, and the neighborhood’s documented party-house problem. The jury will see what was foreseeable.
For a deeper dive into how insurance companies handle these claims — and how we neutralize them — see our resource on what to do if your car insurance claim is denied, which contains the same playbook mechanics applied to a different claim type.
The First 72 Hours — Your Practical Roadmap
If you or a family member was shot at this party, here is what to do, in order.
Hour 0–6: Medical first. If the victim has not already been taken to a hospital, call 911. Do not delay medical care for any reason. Every hour that passes between injury and treatment is an hour the defense will later argue reduced the victim’s chances of a full recovery. Let the medical record tell the story.
Hour 6–24: Preserve the evidence you control. Save every text message, every email, every social-media post related to the party, the booking, the property, or the shooting. Photograph any injuries immediately and continue photographing them daily — bruises fade, swelling subsides, scars form. If the victim has a phone with photos, video, or messages from the night of the shooting, back that phone up to the cloud and do not delete anything.
Hour 24–48: Call us. 1-888-ATTY-911. The free consultation takes 20 to 30 minutes. We will tell you whether we can help, what the case is worth pursuing for, and what the immediate next steps are. If we take the case, we go to work the same day — preservation letters out the door, medical records requested, booking platform records demanded, police reports obtained.
Hour 48–72: Do not speak to the other side. The property owner’s insurance carrier may already have reached out. The host of the party may want to talk. The police may want a follow-up statement. Refer everyone to us. We will handle communications with the insurance company, the police, and any other parties from this point forward. Nothing you say in the first 72 hours will help your case; almost everything you say in the first 72 hours can be used against you. The single hardest lesson in personal injury law is that the well-meaning people who call you in the first 72 hours are almost always working for someone whose interests are not yours.
The Legal Team — Who Will Handle Your Case
Ralph P. Manginello is the Managing Partner of Attorney911 and the trial attorney who leads our California cases. Ralph has been licensed to practice law for more than 27 years and has tried cases in both state and federal court, including the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. He is a graduate of the South Texas College of Law Houston and holds a B.A. in Journalism and Public Relations from the University of Texas at Austin — a background that gives him an unusual ability to translate complex cases into the language a jury actually understands. Before becoming a lawyer, Ralph was a journalist, and he still approaches every case the way a good reporter approaches a story: who knew what, when did they know it, and what did they do about it. That instinct — to find the truth inside the paperwork — is what wins negligent-security cases in California. Learn more about Ralph.
Lupe Peña is the associate attorney who brings a different and indispensable weapon to the team. Lupe has been licensed to practice law for more than 12 years and is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas as well. Before joining our firm, Lupe worked as an insurance-defense attorney at a national defense firm — the same kind of firm that will be defending the property owner and its carrier in your case. Lupe knows how claims are valued, how reserves are set, how the recorded-statement call is engineered, how the IME (independent medical examination) doctor is selected, how surveillance is deployed, and how delay tactics are used to wear down a plaintiff. He knows the playbook from the inside because he used to run it. Now he runs it for the other side. Lupe is also fully bilingual in English and Spanish — he conducts full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter, which matters deeply for the many California families for whom English is not their first language. Learn more about Lupe.
Together, Ralph and Lupe bring something most firms cannot offer: a 27-year trial veteran paired with a former insurance-defense insider who knows exactly what the carrier is going to do before the carrier does it.
How We Charge — Contingency Fee, No Upfront Cost, Free Consultation
We handle negligent-security and premises-liability cases on a contingency fee. That means:
- No fee unless we win. If we do not recover money for you, you owe us nothing.
- 33.33% of the recovery before trial. If we settle the case before filing a lawsuit, or after filing but before trial, our fee is one-third of the gross recovery.
- 40% of the recovery if the case goes to trial. If the case proceeds all the way through trial, our fee is forty percent.
- Costs are advanced by the firm. We pay the costs of litigation — filing fees, deposition costs, expert witness fees, exhibit costs — and recover those costs out of the settlement or verdict. You owe nothing up front.
- The first consultation is free. Call 1-888-ATTY-911. Twenty to thirty minutes. No obligation. If we can help, we will tell you. If we cannot, we will tell you that too.
Call Us Now — 1-888-ATTY-911
If you or someone you love was shot at the Hollywood Hills Super Bowl party on North Crescent Heights Boulevard, do not wait. The evidence is dying. The insurance carrier is already moving. The property owner is already calling its lawyer.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. The first call is free, the consultation is confidential, and there is no obligation. If we take your case, we go to work the same day — preservation letters out the door, medical records requested, police reports obtained, booking platform records demanded. We do not wait. We have seen what happens when families wait, and we will not let it happen to yours.
We serve clients across California in cases involving negligent security, premises liability, wrongful death, brain injury, and catastrophic personal injury. We work on contingency — no fee unless we win — and we fight for the full value of every case. Hablamos Español.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. Serving California injury victims with the seriousness their cases deserve.