CVN screenshot of plaintiff attorney Kimball Jones delivering his closing argument
Las Vegas, NV - A Nevada state court jury has awarded roughly $56.5 million to a man claiming he suffered serious injuries in a fight he argues was needlessly instigated by bouncers at a Las Vegas restaurant, beating out a $5 million settlement offer from the defense, and the full trial was recorded gavel-to-gavel by Courtroom View Network.
Plaintiff Omar Al Rabadi blamed bouncers at Chayo Mexican Kitchen, owned by Caesars Entertainment, for supposedly escalating a verbal confrontation into a melee that Al Rabadi claims left him with a permanent traumatic brain injury. His attorney, Kimball Jones of Bighorn Law, asked the Clark County jury to award between $50 and $70 million in damages in his closing argument on August 7, however the defense argued the bouncers acted properly in dealing with a group of rowdy patrons while also questioning the severity of Al Ramadi’s brain injury.
The full trial was recorded gavel-to-gavel by CVN including all witness testimony. Sign up today for a subscription to CVN’s online trial video library - the only online video collection of civil jury trials anywhere - and get unlimited on-demand access to this trial and hundreds more featuring many of the top plaintiff and defense attorneys practicing today.
Jones told CVN his team made a $5 million settlement demand that the defense rejected until a month before trial. At that time they made a $5 million offer, which Jones said he rejected in lieu of going to a jury.
“The defense never increased their offer,” he explained, noting he doesn’t anticipate any preserved issues that could risk the verdict on appeal, which he characterized as “fully collectible.”
Attorneys for the defense did not respond to a request for comment.
The case resulted from a 2021 incident, when Al Rabadi and a group of friends visited Chayo as part of a family celebration but became involved in a verbal altercation with another group. Jones argued the bouncers riled the parties up further and a fight erupted that later spilled out into the street. During the fight Al Rabadi suffered kicks to the head from an unidentified assailant that left him with a diffuse axonal brain injury, which he claims cost him a promising technical career in the US Navy.
Jones attributed the jury returning an amount in the range he requested to the strength of the evidence showing the defendants violated their own security standards. Jones devoted a significant portion of his opening and closing statements to detailing Caesars written policies for security staff and explaining how the Chayo bouncers violated those standards by instigating a fight versus de-escalating one.
“The defense did as much as they could with the evidence they had, but the evidence clearly showed defendants violated security standards, and that their negligent behavior led to catastrophic injury,” Jones said.
He also suggested his team outgunned the defense in terms of expert witnesses, noting that specific type of testimony is critically important in trials dealing with the subjective nuances of traumatic brain injuries.
“In terms of experts, plaintiff's experts were clearly far more qualified and they had also reviewed all of the relevant evidence. On the other hand, the defense experts were often not well credentialed for a traumatic brain injury case and none of them had reviewed all of the relevant evidence,” Jones explained.
CVN screenshot of defense attorney Joel Odou delivering his closing argument
Besides expert testimony, Jones also felt testimony from Chayo’s own staff did more to help the plaintiff’s case than the defense.
“The defense witnesses were forced to admit that Omar was non-violent and that their own bouncers violated the agreed-upon safety standards,” Jones detailed. “In particular, Chayo's Head of Security, Miguel Williams, admitted Chayo's bouncers put Omar in danger by violating numerous security standards and then chose to not protect him after they placed him in danger.”
Jones said the setting for the incident presented a potential challenge, since some jurors may not be sympathetic to someone partying in a bar late at night regardless of the circumstances, but Jones felt his team mitigated that risk during jury selection.
“We found that, regardless of the evidence showing Omar did nothing wrong, some people tended to unfairly shift blame to Omar based merely on the fact that he was legally at a bar late at night,” Jones said. “We handled this in jury selection asking the jury that very question.”
Jones also chalked up the verdict lining up with what he requested to alleged misconduct by the defense related to production of surveillance video and other evidence. Both sides relied heavily on chaotic surveillance video of the incident to prove their case.
“There was massive spoliation of evidence in this case by both defendants, involving video, witness statements, and prior incidents,” Jones said, referring to Caesars and Chayo. “When contrasted with the sincere case presented by the plaintiff, the credibility gap was meaningful.”
Jones laid out the intake history of the lawsuit, explaining how local attorneys Mike Trippiedi and Wally Zaman of ZT Law Group got Al Rabadi’s case and decided to try it jointly with Bighorn Law.
“After meeting Omar, I was grateful for the opportunity to help. We handled the case together in litigation and trial, along with Valentina Ortega, also from my office,” Jones said.
The defense was represented by Joel Odou and Phillip Tiberi of Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP.
The case is captioned Omar Al Rabadi v. Three Amigos Restaurant Group LLC., case number A-23-874247-C in Nevada’s Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County.
Email David Siegel at dsiegel@cvn.com
