After more than three weeks of trial, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury returned a defense verdict for a national hotel company in a case involving a sudden attack on a hotel guest. The plaintiff sought more than $6 million.
Attorneys Saleem Hawatmeh and Shawheen Khodapanah kept the jury focused on the central question: Could the hotel reasonably have anticipated the attack based on what it knew at the time?
The case arose when a hotel guest stepped outside to move his car from the loading zone. Without warning, a stranger with no connection to the hotel punched him. The plaintiff suffered facial fractures, dental injuries, a concussion, and emotional distress.
Six days earlier, the assailant had been involved in an incident on the property. Hotel staff called 911, and responding officers arrested him and took him away. The plaintiff argued that this earlier incident made the later attack foreseeable and that a security guard, a warning, or a posted description would have prevented his injuries.
A Defense Grounded in What the Hotel Knew
From opening statement through closing argument, Hawatmeh and Khodapanah acknowledged the seriousness of the plaintiff’s injuries. Their theme was direct: Sometimes bad things happen to good people, and sometimes horrible things happen to excellent people.
The injuries were real. The question was whether the hotel could reasonably have anticipated and prevented the assailant’s conduct.
The defense emphasized the information available to hotel staff before the attack. Police had resolved the earlier incident by arresting and removing the man. The hotel had neither his name nor his photograph, and an officer had told staff he did not know when the man would be released.
Identifying the assailant also proved difficult. Even the investigating detective, reviewing videos of both incidents side by side, could not confirm that they depicted the same man until a photo lineup weeks later.
The defense urged the jury to evaluate the hotel’s conduct based on what staff knew that night, without the benefit of hindsight.
Testing the Proposed Security Measures
Hawatmeh and Khodapanah also examined whether the plaintiff’s proposed precautions would have prevented the attack. They walked the jury through the assumptions each measure required: that a guard would have recognized the man, that a warning would have conveyed useful information, or that a posted description would have prevented a sudden assault.
When the plaintiff argued that the hotel should have warned its guests, the defense posed a practical question: Warn them of what?
The Verdict
The jury found 10–2 that the attack was not reasonably anticipated, resolving the case on the first question of the verdict form and returning a defense verdict for the hotel.
The result reflects Hawatmeh and Khodapanah’s disciplined trial preparation and clear presentation of the evidence. Throughout the trial, they maintained respect for the injured plaintiff while explaining why the evidence did not support holding the hotel responsible for the attack.