Zamora et al v. Daniel Defense, LLC et al

On February 22, 2023, Christina Zamora, individually and as next friend of M.Z.; Ruben Zamora, individually and as next friend of M.Z.; and Jamie Torres, individually and as next friend of K.T. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), represented by Molly Thomas-Jensen of Everytown Law and Blas H. Delgado of Law Offices of Blas Delgado, P.C., filed a civil rights action against Daniel Defense, LLC, Oasis Outback, LLC (“Oasis Outback”), the City of Uvalde, Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District (“UCISD”), Pedro “Pete” Arredondo (“Arredondo”), and others (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking damages for alleged negligence and violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, with Judge Lee Yeakel presiding.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged, “M.Z. woke up on May 24, 2022 excited for the day to come—it was awards day at Robb Elementary and she knew that she would receive several awards. Her father, Ruben Zamora, was going to take her to school that day. She planned to leave school after the awards ceremony to continue to spend time with him rather than stay at school.”

Plaintiffs further alleged, “Later that morning, both M.Z.’s parents, Ruben and Christina, looked on with pride as she received three awards—for Skills Mastered in Math, for participating in the Robotics Program, and for Excellence in the AB Honor Roll. M.Z. was very proud and excited to have her parents present at the awards ceremony.”

The plaintiffs also alleged, “On May 24, 2022, at around 11:30 a.m., Salvador Ramos walked into Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas, armed with a Daniel Defense DDM4 V7 rifle and carrying hundreds of rounds of ammunition. He entered a set of connected classrooms (Rooms 111 and 112) where he murdered 19 children and two teachers and wounded at least 17 other children.”

The plaintiffs further alleged, “M.Z. and K.T. were in classroom 112. M.Z. was shot repeatedly, and very nearly died. She had to be airlifted to San Antonio. Her parents spent two months sleeping in her hospital room. She has undergone over sixty surgeries, and she still faces a long road to recovery. K.T. was hit by shrapnel. K.T. knew that she needed to pretend to be dead to survive, so she lay in blood with her eyes open because she saw that her dead and dying classmates had their eyes open. Both K.T. and M.Z. live with fear, anxiety, and distress. They, and all of Uvalde, will never be the same.”

The plaintiffs also alleged, “As a federal firearms licensee, Oasis Outback had a legal duty to not sell guns to prospective purchasers who it knew, or reasonably should have known, planned to use them to harm others. Given the many obvious red flags, it was a reckless dereliction of that duty for Oasis Outback to complete Ramos’ transactions.”

Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged, “M.Z. was shot in her chest, arm, and hand. It is a miracle that she did not die as she lay in classroom 112, bleeding, in pain, wondering if help would ever reach her classroom. Seventy-seven minutes of suffering, blood loss, and despair. Her parents searched for her at the school, at the hospital, and at the civic center in increasing terror that their daughter was among the wounded or the dead.”

Plaintiffs stated eight claims for relief, including for alleged negligence, negligence per se, negligent transfer, negligent sale, unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Substantive Due Process by a State created danger and custodial relationship pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Monell Liability for failure to train.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiffs requested an award for compensatory and punitive damages, with pre- and post-judgment interest.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.