The Day That Was Supposed to Be a Birthday
A mother is sitting in a house with a bedroom that still holds her son’s things, a calendar that still has his name on it, and a phone she keeps checking because some part of her still believes the screen is going to light up. Her son, Elijah Wells, was eighteen. He went to what was supposed to be a birthday party at a large house on Top-O-The-Hill Drive in Bath Township, Summit County, Ohio on the night of November 2, 2025. By the time the sun came up on the third of November, gunfire had torn through that house, nine people had been hit, and Elijah was fighting for his life. He died days later. He was a phenomenal person, and the world is going to take a big loss without him.
A young man named Reginald “Reggie” Hart, who was nineteen at the time, was inside that home for only about ten minutes before the shooting started. He dropped to the kitchen floor for cover and was still struck multiple times in the back and feet. More than seven months later, he continues to suffer from serious injuries. He will be dealing with the consequences of that night for the rest of his life.
If you are reading this because someone you love is part of this story, we are sorry. We are sorry for what has already happened, and we are sorry for the long road ahead. We are also here to tell you what we know, what the law in Ohio allows you to do, what evidence is at risk of disappearing right now, and what the path forward looks like when a family sues the people who allowed this party to happen.
We do not write this for the news cycle. We write it for the mother who has to explain to her younger children what happened to their brother, and for the survivor who has to explain to himself why he is still here when his friend is not. We write it because the people responsible for letting this party happen at this house on this night have not yet been held fully accountable, and the civil justice system in Ohio is the path that can finish what the criminal charges started.
What We Know About the Night of November 2, 2025
The shooting happened at a large residential property on Top-O-The-Hill Drive in Bath Township, a quiet, affluent area in Summit County in northeast Ohio. Bath Township is the kind of place where people buy homes for the seclusion, the lot size, and the privacy. The roads are quiet, the houses sit back from the street, and the neighbors know each other. That is exactly what made this address attractive to whoever chose it for a large party that night.
A birthday party was advertised. Word spread. People came. According to the civil lawsuit filed in Summit County Common Pleas Court, the property was being used as a short-term rental on the night of the shooting, despite the fact that Bath Township’s residential zoning prohibits short-term rentals in R-1 and R-2 residential districts. The house is in a residential zoning district. Operating it as a short-term rental is a violation of local zoning law, and the property owner either knew about that violation or operated the property in a way that made it impossible not to know.
At some point during the party, three suspects accused of opening fire during the event began shooting. Nine people were struck. Elijah Wells, eighteen years old, was hit. He was taken to a hospital and fought for his life for days. He did not survive. His mother, Alicia Wells, has filed a wrongful death lawsuit on his behalf. Reginald Hart, nineteen, was shot in the back and feet. He had been in the home for about ten minutes when the gunfire began, and he is now facing a long medical and psychological recovery. His family has joined the lawsuit as a plaintiff.
The three criminal suspects are facing murder charges and are set to go to trial in 2027. The criminal case will decide whether these three individuals go to prison. The civil case that Alicia Wells and the Hart family have filed asks a different question: who else is responsible for this? Who allowed this party to happen at this house? Who made money from this house being used in a way that local zoning law forbids? Who knew, or should have known, that this property was a magnet for exactly the kind of violence that took Elijah’s life?
That second question is the one the civil case is built to answer.
Why a Civil Case Matters Even When There Is a Criminal Case
A lot of families in this position assume that the criminal charges handle everything. They do not. The criminal case is brought by the State of Ohio, against three individuals, and its only question is whether those three individuals are guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The victims and their families are witnesses in that case. They do not control it, and they cannot recover money from it. Even if the three suspects are convicted and imprisoned for the rest of their lives, no dollar of restitution reaches the Wells family for the loss of their son, and no dollar reaches Reginald Hart for the medical care he will need for the rest of his life.
A wrongful death and personal injury case in Ohio civil court answers a different set of questions, against a different set of defendants, and with a different standard of proof. The civil case can reach the property owner who rented the house in violation of local zoning. It can reach the company that hosted the listing on a global platform, took a cut of the booking revenue, and had the technology to flag exactly this kind of high-risk booking. It can reach the people who organized the party and made the decisions about who got in, how many people attended, and whether there was any security. Those defendants are separate from the three shooters, and they have their own money, their own insurance, and their own legal exposure.
In Ohio, the standard of proof in a civil case is more likely than not, a lower bar than the criminal standard. The same evidence that may be insufficient to convict a shooter of murder beyond a reasonable doubt can be more than enough to hold a property owner or a corporate platform civilly responsible for the foreseeable consequences of running an illegal short-term rental. The Wells family and the Hart family have done exactly what Ohio law invites them to do: they have filed suit.
The Illegal Short-Term Rental Theory (Why This Case Is Not Just a Shooting Case)
A piece of this case that does not always get explained in the news is the property law underneath it. Bath Township’s zoning resolution prohibits short-term rentals in R-1 and R-2 residential districts. The house on Top-O-The-Hill Drive is in one of those residential districts. Operating the property as a short-term rental is a violation of the zoning code. The complaint filed by the Wells and Hart families alleges the property should never have been listed as a short-term rental in the first place.
This is not a technicality. It is the legal spine of the civil case. When a property owner operates a residence in a way that local zoning law forbids, and that operation is the reason a large party is happening at the house on a particular night, the property owner has created a foreseeable danger to the surrounding community and to the people inside. The fact that the zoning code says you cannot do this is the law telling you that you cannot do this for a reason: residential streets and large party traffic and gun violence do not mix.
The legal theories that grow from this fact pattern are layered, and we will use every one of them that the facts support.
Under Bath Township’s residential zoning regulations, short-term rentals are prohibited in R-1 and R-2 districts. The property at issue is in one of those districts. Operating the property as a short-term rental is a zoning violation, and that violation is the foundation for a negligence per se claim in Ohio. Negligence per se means that the violation of the statute or regulation is treated, in itself, as proof of negligence. The plaintiff still has to prove that the violation caused the harm, but the defendant cannot argue the conduct was reasonable when the regulation already says it is not.
The first theory is negligent security. A property owner who operates a residence in a way that draws large, unmanaged gatherings to a quiet residential street owes a duty of care to the people who come onto the property. That duty is breached when the property owner fails to take reasonable steps to control access, fails to screen guests, fails to provide any meaningful security presence, and fails to enforce any house rules about occupancy. Elijah Wells and Reginald Hart were invitees on that property. They had every right to expect that the people running the house had taken reasonable steps to keep them safe. They did not.
The second theory is negligence per se, which we just described. The zoning violation is the proof that the property owner’s conduct was not merely careless; it was in direct conflict with the law that was written to prevent exactly this kind of situation.
The third theory is premises liability. As invitees, Elijah and Reginald were owed the highest duty of care Ohio recognizes for a property owner. The property was operated in a way that fell below that duty. The harm was foreseeable. The harm happened.
The fourth theory is wrongful death under Ohio Revised Code § 2125, the Ohio Wrongful Death Act, which allows the personal representative of a decedent to bring a civil action for the benefit of the surviving spouse, children, parents, and other next of kin. That claim is about the loss of support, the loss of services, the loss of society, and the loss of companionship that Elijah’s family has suffered and will continue to suffer for the rest of their lives.
The Defendants in This Case and What Each One Owes
The complaint names Airbnb, the property owner, the party organizers, and the three criminal suspects. Each one of these defendants has a different role, a different insurance picture, and a different legal theory against them. We are going to walk through each one.
The Property Owner
The property owner is the heart of this case. The property owner made the decision to list the house on a short-term rental platform despite the fact that local zoning prohibits it. The property owner collected the rental revenue. The property owner set the house rules or failed to set them. The property owner knew, or should have known, that operating a residential property as a short-term rental in this neighborhood would, sooner or later, produce exactly the kind of large unmanaged gathering that ended in gunfire. A residential street in Bath Township is not built for that. The neighbors did not move there for that. The people who came to the party did not come there expecting that.
The civil claim against the property owner is for negligent entrustment of the property, negligent security, and the zoning violation that makes the whole arrangement unlawful. The property owner’s insurance, depending on the policy, may or may not respond. We will pursue every available insurance layer and, where insurance is insufficient, the personal assets of the property owner.
Airbnb
Airbnb is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, and there is a real legal theory against the company. Airbnb operates a global platform that connects guests with short-term rentals. The platform takes a percentage of every booking. The platform had the technology to flag high-risk bookings before they were confirmed. The platform has, in fact, implemented a global “party ban” policy and has stated that it uses its technology to identify and block bookings that look like they may be for unauthorized events. The complaint alleges that despite this technology, the property was listed and the booking was processed.
The legal theory against Airbnb is not that the company is strictly liable for everything that happens at every rental on its platform. The legal theory is that Airbnb knowingly facilitated an illegal short-term rental in a jurisdiction where the rental itself violated local zoning law, and that Airbnb should have known, through its own booking data, its own party-ban technology, and its own internal risk-scoring, that this particular booking was high-risk. The Civil Rights-era and consumer-protection-era legal landscape around platform liability has been evolving, and the Ohio courts will apply their own standards. We are prepared to argue this case under every available theory.
The fact that the house was being used in violation of Bath Township’s zoning code is a critical fact. Airbnb’s own policies, in many cases, prohibit listings that violate local laws. If Airbnb continued to host the listing despite that, and if the violation is what made the party possible, then Airbnb facilitated an unlawful arrangement for profit.
The Party Organizers
The party organizers made the decisions that turned a residential house into the site of a fatal shooting. They decided to hold a large party at the address. They decided how to invite people, who to invite, and how to manage the crowd. They decided whether or not to provide any security. They decided how to handle the property. When the shooting started, the organizers had the responsibility to do everything in their power to protect the people inside, and that responsibility was breached.
The claim against the party organizers is for negligent planning, negligent crowd control, and negligent failure to screen guests for weapons at a high-occupancy event. When you hold a large party in a residential house and invite a crowd of people you cannot account for, you have created a foreseeable danger, and you are responsible for the foreseeable consequences. Nine people were shot. One of them died. Those are the foreseeable consequences.
The Three Criminal Suspects
The three criminal suspects are named in the civil complaint and are facing murder charges in the criminal system, with trial set in 2027. The civil case against them is for the intentional torts of assault, battery, and wrongful death. We will pursue the civil case against them in coordination with the criminal case, and the criminal conviction, when it comes, will be powerful evidence in the civil case. In Ohio, a criminal conviction can be used as collateral estoppel in a subsequent civil case, meaning the suspects will not be able to relitigate the question of whether they did it.
Ohio Law and Why It Protects This Family
Ohio law is favorable to families in this position in several important ways. We want you to understand the law, because the law is what gives us the tools to hold these defendants accountable.
Comparative Negligence in Ohio
Ohio follows a modified comparative negligence rule with a fifty-one percent bar. The doctrine is codified at Ohio Revised Code § 2315.33. Under this rule, a plaintiff can still recover damages as long as the plaintiff’s share of fault does not exceed fifty percent. If the plaintiff’s fault is fifty percent or less, the recovery is reduced by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault but is not barred. If the plaintiff’s fault is more than fifty percent, recovery is barred entirely.
In a case like this, the defense will almost certainly try to argue comparative fault. They will say that Elijah Wells and Reginald Hart chose to attend a party at a house they did not know. They will say the young men put themselves in a position of risk. None of that is a legal basis for blaming the victim. The victims were invitees. They had every right to be where they were. They did not bring guns to the party. They did not know the property was being operated in violation of local zoning. They did not consent to being shot.
“In a civil action, a party may recover damages for bodily injury, death, or loss of services resulting from bodily injury, or for property damage, only if the party seeking recovery bears no greater than fifty per cent of the total fault for the injury, death, or property damage. The total fault for the injury, death, or property damage shall be allocated among all persons who proximately caused the injury, death, or property damage, in proportion to the relative degree of fault of each person.” — Ohio Revised Code § 2315.33 (modified comparative negligence, 51% bar).
In our view, the comparative fault allocation in this case should be straightforward. The property owner, the platform, and the party organizers created and enabled the conditions that made the shooting possible. The shooters pulled the triggers. The victims did nothing to cause their own injuries. We will fight any attempt to blame the victim, and we will be ready to prove that any allocation of fault to the victims is wrong as a matter of fact and as a matter of law.
Damages Caps in Ohio
Ohio Revised Code § 2315.18 caps non-economic damages in most personal injury cases. The cap exists and is real, and it would limit damages for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-monetary losses. There is a critical exception that applies here: the cap on non-economic damages does not apply to wrongful death claims. Wrongful death damages in Ohio are not subject to the § 2315.18 cap.
Additionally, the cap on non-economic damages does not apply in cases involving “permanent and substantial physical deformity, loss of use of a limb, or loss of use of a bodily organ system.” Reginald Hart was shot in the back and in his feet. He had been in the home for ten minutes. We are still evaluating the long-term medical consequences of his injuries, but the injuries he has already sustained are exactly the kind of injuries the Ohio legislature carved out from the damages cap. We will argue for the full measure of compensation that Ohio law allows.
Punitive Damages in Ohio
Ohio allows punitive damages under Ohio Revised Code § 2315.21. Punitive damages are awarded not to compensate the plaintiff but to punish the defendant and to deter similar conduct in the future. Punitive damages are available when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with actual malice, meaning a conscious, deliberate disregard of the rights and safety of other persons that has a great probability of causing substantial harm.
Operating a residential property in violation of local zoning law, when the violation is the reason a large unmanaged party was held at a house in a quiet residential neighborhood, is the kind of conduct that supports a punitive damages claim. So is facilitating that operation through a global platform with the technology to detect and block high-risk bookings. So is the conduct of party organizers who invited a crowd to a residential house and failed to provide any security. We will pursue punitive damages against every defendant whose conduct meets the Ohio standard.
The Statute of Limitations in Ohio
Under Ohio Revised Code § 2125.02, the general statute of limitations for wrongful death actions in Ohio is two years from the date of death. The statute of limitations for personal injury claims in Ohio is two years from the date of injury under Ohio Revised Code § 2305.10. The clock on Elijah’s wrongful death claim began when he died, and the clock on Reginald’s personal injury claim began on the night he was shot.
The two-year deadline is real, and missing it would end the case. We want the family and the survivor to know that the deadline is approaching, and that the single most important thing they can do is to act now to preserve evidence and to get the case filed. We are here to help you do that.
The Evidence That Is Disappearing Right Now
The Wells and Hart families have already filed suit, which is the right move, but the lawsuit is only as strong as the evidence that supports it. Some of the most important evidence in this case is being lost or destroyed right now, and the family and the survivor need to know what is at stake.
Airbnb Booking Records
Airbnb booking records are the most important evidence in the case against the platform. The booking records will show when the property was listed, who booked it, how many people were in the party, how the booking was paid for, and whether Airbnb’s own risk-scoring technology flagged the booking as high-risk. Airbnb has the technology to preserve this data, but the company has every incentive to let routine data retention policies take their course and lose the records. We are issuing a litigation hold letter to Airbnb immediately to demand preservation of all booking records, all communications between the host and the platform, all internal risk-scoring outputs, and all communications with the party organizers.
The risk that these records are lost is high. Airbnb’s data retention policies are not designed with catastrophic incidents in mind, and the company has been known to resist preservation demands in similar cases. The faster the family moves, the better the chance that the records survive.
Neighboring Surveillance Video
The shooting happened at a house in a residential neighborhood. Houses in that neighborhood have doorbell cameras, driveways have security cameras, and neighbors often have Ring cameras or similar devices. Those cameras may have captured video of people arriving at the house, cars parking on the street, the sounds of the party, and the aftermath of the shooting. This kind of footage is critical because it provides an objective record of what happened, who was there, and how the events unfolded.
The problem is that home security cameras typically overwrite their footage on a rolling cycle. Many systems overwrite after seven to thirty days. Some systems overwrite faster. By the time the lawsuit was filed, the critical footage from the night of the shooting may already be gone, and the footage from the days after the shooting is at risk. We are sending preservation letters to every neighbor in the area whose property might have captured relevant footage.
Social Media Posts
The party was advertised on social media. The complaint alleges that the property was listed and the event was promoted through online channels. Social media posts about the party, including invitations, photos, videos, and the original listing for the short-term rental, are critical evidence. They show how the event was organized, how many people were expected, and how the property was being marketed. They also create a record that can be used to identify witnesses and to establish the chain of custody for the evidence.
The problem is that social media posts get deleted. People who attended the party may have posted about it and then deleted their posts in the days and weeks after the shooting. The original listing for the short-term rental may have been removed. The party’s promotional material may have been scrubbed. We are issuing preservation demands to every social media platform where the party was advertised or discussed, and we are using the discovery process to obtain the deleted content from platform backups.
Police Radio Traffic and Body Camera Footage
The police responded to the shooting that night. Their response generated radio traffic, body camera footage, and incident reports. The radio traffic and body camera footage provide an objective record of the scene, the conditions at the house, the number of victims, and the actions of law enforcement in the immediate aftermath. The incident reports provide the official narrative of the event.
We are filing public records requests to obtain the police reports, the radio traffic, and the body camera footage from the agencies that responded. We are also asking the court to order the preservation of any evidence collected by law enforcement, including physical evidence from the scene, witness statements, and the crime lab analysis.
Surveillance Video From the Property Itself
The house on Top-O-The-Hill Drive may have had its own security cameras, including doorbell cameras and interior cameras. The property owner and the short-term rental platform have the ability to preserve this footage, and they have the incentive to let it disappear. We are issuing a preservation demand to the property owner and to the platform immediately.
The Insurance Adjuster’s Playbook and Our Counter
When the insurance companies get involved in a case like this, they will deploy a predictable set of tactics. We want the family to know what those tactics look like and how we counter each one.
The first play is the recorded statement. Within days of a serious incident, an insurance adjuster or a defense investigator will reach out and ask for a recorded statement. The adjuster will be friendly. The adjuster will say that the company just wants to understand what happened. The adjuster will ask leading questions designed to get the family or the survivor to say something that can be used against them later. The counter is simple: do not give a recorded statement to anyone without your lawyer present. We will handle all communications with the insurance company and the defense attorneys so that nothing the family says can be twisted or used against them.
The second play is the social media investigation. The insurance company will search the social media accounts of the victims, looking for anything that can be used to suggest that the victims were at fault, were involved in risky behavior, or had pre-existing conditions. The company will look for photos, posts, and messages that can be used to minimize the damages. The counter is to assume that everything posted online is potentially discoverable and to refrain from posting about the incident or the case on any platform. We will advise the family on what to do and what not to do online.
The third play is the quick settlement offer. The insurance company will offer a fast settlement, often before the family has had time to understand the full extent of their losses. The offer will be framed as a way to put the matter behind them and move on. The counter is to understand that an early settlement is almost always a lowball, and that the full value of the case cannot be known until the medical treatment has progressed, the long-term prognosis has been established, and the full extent of the loss has been calculated. We will not allow the family to be rushed into a settlement that does not reflect the true value of the case.
The fourth play is the blame-the-victim narrative. The insurance company will argue that the victims put themselves in harm’s way by attending a party at a house they did not know. They will argue that the victims should have known better. They will try to shift the fault to the victims. The counter is the law. Ohio’s comparative negligence statute does not allow recovery to be barred unless the plaintiff’s fault exceeds fifty percent, and the conduct of attending a party is not, in any reasonable legal analysis, a fifty-percent share of the fault for being shot. The victims did not bring the guns. The victims did not violate the zoning code. The victims did not organize the party. The defense will try to assign them fault anyway, and we will be ready to fight that every step of the way.
The Value of This Case
We do not make promises about specific dollar figures, because the value of a case like this depends on the facts we develop through discovery, the medical evidence, and the eventual trial. But we can tell you, in honest terms, what the range of compensation looks like and what drives the numbers up or down.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
In a wrongful death case involving the loss of an eighteen-year-old, the damages include the loss of financial support the decedent would have provided over a lifetime, the loss of household services, the loss of companionship and society, and the loss of guidance and counsel that a parent is entitled to expect from a child. The economic damages in such a case are calculated using the decedent’s expected earnings over a working lifetime, adjusted for the personal consumption the decedent would have made, and projected forward using standard economic methods. For an eighteen-year-old with a full life ahead of him, the projected economic loss is substantial.
The non-economic damages in a wrongful death case in Ohio are not subject to the general cap on non-economic damages. They include the family’s grief, the loss of Elijah’s presence in their lives, the loss of the relationship they would have had with him as an adult, and the enduring impact of his absence on every family member. In cases involving the death of a young person at the hands of a third party, juries in Ohio have returned verdicts in the multi-million-dollar range. The range for cases of this severity, depending on the jurisdiction and the specific facts, can run from several million dollars to tens of millions of dollars, particularly when punitive damages are available.
In a personal injury case, the damages include the past and future medical expenses, the lost wages and earning capacity, the pain and suffering, and the permanent impairment. For Reginald Hart, who was shot in the back and in the feet, the medical damages alone could be substantial. He will likely need ongoing medical care, possibly physical therapy, and possibly additional surgeries. If the injuries result in any permanent impairment, that impairment is a separate category of damages. The non-economic damages, given the nature and severity of his injuries, are also substantial.
The punitive damages component, if we can prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, is on top of the compensatory damages. Punitive damages in Ohio wrongful death and personal injury cases are often one to four times the compensatory damages, depending on the egregiousness of the conduct and the defendant’s net worth.
In rough terms, and with the caveat that every case is different, the realistic range of total recovery in a case like this runs from several million dollars on the low end to the high eight figures on the upper end, depending on the strength of the evidence, the insurance available, and the defendants’ net worth. The criminal case against the three shooters will not produce any of this money for the victims. The civil case is the only path to financial recovery for the Wells and Hart families.
How the Defendants Try to Hide the Money
The Wells and Hart families should know that the defendants in this case will use every corporate and legal trick to keep their money out of reach. We are prepared for each of these tactics.
The property owner will try to argue that the homeowner’s insurance policy excludes business activity, that the short-term rental was a separate business entity, or that the owner was not the responsible party. We will pursue every layer of insurance, including the homeowner’s policy, any umbrella or excess policies, and any commercial coverage that may have been issued for the short-term rental activity. We will also pursue the personal assets of the property owner where insurance is insufficient.
Airbnb will argue that it is a platform, not a landlord, and that it bears no responsibility for what happens at a rental property. We will counter with the booking records, the platform’s own risk-scoring technology, the platform’s own party-ban policy, and the platform’s continued hosting of an illegal short-term rental in a jurisdiction where the rental itself violated local zoning. We will argue that Airbnb facilitated an unlawful arrangement for profit, and that the company’s own technology should have caught this booking before it was confirmed.
The party organizers will try to disappear. They may be hard to find, they may have limited insurance, and they may try to blame the shooters for everything. We will use every tool available to locate them, to preserve their assets, and to hold them accountable for the decisions they made on the night of November 2, 2025.
The Path Forward
The Wells and Hart families have already taken the most important first step: they have filed a lawsuit. The lawsuit is the formal mechanism by which the family demands accountability, the formal mechanism by which evidence is preserved through the discovery process, and the formal mechanism by which the case moves toward a resolution.
The next steps include formal discovery, which is the process by which we obtain documents, take depositions, and build the evidentiary record. The discovery process is where the corporate defendants are forced to turn over their internal communications, their risk-scoring outputs, their training materials, and their safety policies. Discovery is also where we depose the party organizers, the property owner, and the Airbnb representatives under oath.
The case will also involve expert witnesses. We will retain a premises security expert to evaluate the security failures at the property. We will retain a use-and-zoning expert to evaluate the violation of Bath Township’s zoning code. We will retain an economist to calculate the lifetime economic losses suffered by the Wells and Hart families. We will retain a medical expert to evaluate the long-term consequences of Reginald Hart’s injuries. Each of these experts will help the jury understand what happened, what should have happened, and what the loss means in concrete terms.
We will pursue this case with the seriousness it deserves. We will not settle for a quick lowball offer. We will not allow the defendants to hide behind procedural delays. We will not stop until the Wells and Hart families have received the full measure of justice that Ohio law provides.
The People Who Will Stand With You
The work on this case will be led by two attorneys with very different but complementary backgrounds.
Ralph Manginello is the managing partner of our firm. He has been licensed in Texas since November 6, 1998, more than twenty-seven years of courtroom practice, including federal court. Before he was a lawyer, he was a journalist, and that background is part of why our cases are built like news investigations: we find the documents, we follow the records, and we tell the story in a way that a jury can understand. Ralph has spent his career in the courtroom fighting for people who have been hurt by the careless and the powerful. You can learn more about Ralph’s background and practice by visiting his attorney page.
Lupe Peña is an associate attorney with the firm. He is a former insurance defense attorney, which means he spent years on the other side of the table, in the rooms where insurance companies and their lawyers set reserves, value claims, and decide how much they will pay. He knows the playbook from the inside. He now uses that knowledge for the injured. He is fluent in Spanish, and he can conduct full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. You can learn more about Lupe’s background and practice by visiting his attorney page.
The work we do for the Wells and Hart families falls into several of our practice areas. The wrongful death claim is the kind of case we have built our practice around, and you can read about our wrongful death practice on our wrongful death claim page. The personal injury claim for Reginald Hart, the insurance issues that will arise on every side of this case, and the layered insurance coverage that will need to be pursued all fall under our insurance claim practice area.
How We Get Paid and What It Costs You Up Front
We work on a contingency fee. That means you do not pay us a retainer, you do not pay us by the hour, and you do not pay us anything up front. Our fee is a percentage of what we recover for you. If we do not win your case, you owe us nothing. The standard contingency fee in Texas is thirty-three and one-third percent before trial and forty percent if the case goes to trial. We will explain the exact percentage in your case during the free consultation.
In addition to our fee, the case will involve case costs. Case costs are the out-of-pocket expenses of pursuing the case, including filing fees, deposition costs, expert witness fees, medical record retrieval, and trial preparation. We advance these costs and recover them out of any recovery we obtain. If we do not recover anything, you do not owe us the costs.
No fee unless we win your case. Free consultation. Twenty-four hour live staff. Spanish spoken: hablamos Español.
What You Can Do Right Now
If you are a member of the Wells family, a member of the Hart family, or someone who attended the party on the night of November 2, 2025, there are several things you should do right now.
First, do not give a recorded statement to anyone, including any insurance adjuster, any defense attorney, or any private investigator. Anything you say can and will be used against you. Refer all inquiries to us.
Second, do not post about the case on social media. Anything you post can be discovered, and even innocent posts can be twisted by the defense. If you have already posted about the case, do not delete those posts, because deletion can be used against you. Just stop posting about it.
Third, write down everything you remember about that night. The address, the date, the time you arrived, the people you saw, the cars you noticed, the sounds you heard, the order of events. Your memory will fade, but a written record you make now will be there when you need it.
Fourth, gather any physical evidence you have. Photos you took that night, screenshots of the listing for the short-term rental, screenshots of any invitations to the party, screenshots of any communications with the party organizers, and any other documents or images that relate to the event.
Fifth, identify any witnesses who were at the party or who were in the neighborhood that night. The more witnesses we can identify, the stronger the case becomes.
Finally, call us. The consultation is free, it is confidential, and there is no obligation. We are available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, including weekends and holidays. You can reach us at 1-888-ATTY-911, or at our contact page. We will listen to your story, we will answer your questions, and we will tell you what we can do.
A Note About What We Will Not Do
We are not going to promise you a specific dollar amount. We are not going to tell you the case will be easy. We are not going to pretend the defense will not fight hard. We are not going to suggest that the criminal case will produce the money the family needs, because it will not. We are not going to give you a sales pitch.
What we are going to do is build the strongest civil case that Ohio law allows, preserve the evidence that is at risk of being lost, pursue every defendant who bears responsibility, and fight for the full measure of damages that the Wells and Hart families are entitled to under the law. We are going to do that with the seriousness, the preparation, and the relentlessness that this case demands.
The night of November 2, 2025, should not have happened. The house on Top-O-The-Hill Drive should not have been operated as an illegal short-term rental. The party should not have been allowed to grow to the size it did. The security should not have been absent. The weapons should not have been there. The triggers should not have been pulled. Elijah Wells should be alive today. Reginald Hart should not have been shot.
We cannot undo any of that. We can, however, hold the people who made it possible accountable, in a court of law, under Ohio statutes, in front of an Ohio jury. That is what we are here to do.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long do I have to file a wrongful death lawsuit in Ohio?
In Ohio, the statute of limitations for wrongful death is two years from the date of death, under Ohio Revised Code § 2125.02. The statute of limitations for personal injury is two years from the date of injury, under Ohio Revised Code § 2305.10. There are limited exceptions that can extend these deadlines, but they are narrow, and you should not assume you have extra time. The safest course is to act now.
Can I sue Airbnb for what happened at a short-term rental?
Yes, under certain theories. The lawsuit in this case has named Airbnb as a defendant, and the legal theory is that Airbnb facilitated an illegal short-term rental in violation of Bath Township’s zoning code, that Airbnb’s own risk-scoring technology should have flagged the booking, and that Airbnb had a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the foreseeable harm that came from the rental. The law in this area is evolving, and we are prepared to argue the strongest available theories under Ohio law.
Can I sue the party organizers even though the shooters are facing criminal charges?
Yes. The party organizers are separate defendants from the shooters. Their liability is based on their own negligent decisions about how the party was organized, how the crowd was managed, and whether any security was provided. The criminal case against the shooters does not preclude the civil case against the organizers, and in fact the criminal case strengthens the civil case by providing additional evidence about what happened.
What if the property owner claims they were not the one who rented the house that night?
That defense is common, and we are prepared to address it. The booking records, the Airbnb communications, and the property owner’s own records will establish who booked the rental, who received the revenue, and who had control of the property on the night of the shooting. The property owner’s denial of responsibility does not change the fact that the property was operated in violation of local zoning, and that violation is a key part of the case.
What if I was partly at fault for going to the party?
Ohio follows a modified comparative negligence rule with a fifty-one percent bar, codified at Ohio Revised Code § 2315.33. You can still recover damages as long as your share of fault does not exceed fifty percent. In our view, the victims in this case bear essentially no legal fault. They were invitees at a party. They did not organize the party, did not bring weapons to the party, did not violate any zoning law, and did not consent to being shot. The defense will try to assign fault to the victims, and we will fight that every step of the way.
How much is my case worth?
We cannot give a specific dollar amount without knowing the full facts of your case. The value of a wrongful death or personal injury case depends on the economic losses, the non-economic losses, the availability of insurance, and the strength of the evidence. For a case of this severity, the range of recovery is substantial, and we will give you an honest assessment of your case’s value after we have completed our initial investigation. We will not promise you a number we cannot deliver.
How long will the case take?
Wrongful death and personal injury cases in Ohio typically take between one and three years to resolve, depending on the complexity of the case, the number of defendants, and whether the case settles or goes to trial. Cases with corporate defendants and complex discovery often take longer. We will keep you informed at every stage and will move the case as quickly as the facts and the court allow.
What about the criminal trial? Does that affect my civil case?
The criminal trial is set for 2027. The criminal case is brought by the State of Ohio against the three shooters, and it will not produce any financial recovery for the victims. The civil case is a separate proceeding with a separate timeline, a separate standard of proof, and a separate set of defendants. The criminal conviction, when it comes, will be powerful evidence in the civil case. We are pursuing the civil case independently of the criminal case and will not wait for the criminal case to conclude before moving forward.
Will the case go to trial?
Many cases settle before trial, and some do not. We prepare every case as if it will go to trial, because that is the only way to ensure that the defense takes the case seriously. Whether the case settles or goes to trial, we will be ready, and we will keep you informed of every development.
What if I cannot afford a lawyer?
You do not need to afford a lawyer up front. We work on a contingency fee, which means we are paid a percentage of what we recover for you. If we do not win, you owe us nothing. We also advance the case costs, which are the out-of-pocket expenses of pursuing the case. We will explain the financial arrangement in detail during the free consultation.
I do not live in Ohio. Can you still represent me?
Yes. The Wells and Hart families may be residents of Ohio or of another state, and either way, we can represent them. The case will be filed in Summit County Common Pleas Court because that is where the shooting happened and where the defendants are located. We routinely represent clients in cases filed in jurisdictions other than our home state, and we will explain how we handle cases across state lines during the free consultation.
I attended the party but was not shot. Do I have a case?
You may have a claim. If you were at the party and suffered emotional distress, fear, or other harm as a result of the shooting, you may be able to bring a claim against one or more of the defendants. The strength of your claim depends on the specific facts of your situation, and we will evaluate your case during the free consultation.
How do I get started?
The first step is to call us. The consultation is free, it is confidential, and there is no obligation. We are available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. You can reach us at 1-888-ATTY-911, or at our contact page. We will listen to your story, we will answer your questions, and we will tell you what we can do.
The First Step
If you are reading this because you lost someone or because you were there that night, we are ready to help. The law gives you the right to hold the people responsible accountable. The evidence is at risk of being lost. The defendants are preparing their defenses. The clock is running.
The Wells and Hart families have already done the hardest part, which is making the decision to fight. We are here to fight with them, and with anyone else whose life was changed by the events of November 2, 2025.
Call us at 1-888-ATTY-911. The consultation is free, the call is confidential, and you owe us nothing. We will tell you what we can do, and we will do it. You can also reach us through our contact page, or learn more about our practice areas at our law practice areas overview.
Hablamos Español.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
