He’s accused of opening fire in The Pump Roadhouse last spring and shooting two people, now details are coming out about how the man charged in the shooting may have been able to get into the bar — he used to work there.
The ownership group of the bar, Soundstage Entertainment Inc., is being sued by the two victims in the shooting. The owner tried to bring the accused shooter, Omar Abdi Hakim Haji-Hussein, into the suit as a co-defendant.
The shooting happened a year ago Saturday.
Soundstage Entertainment Inc. contended in court documents that the only reason Haji-Hussein was in the bar was to commit the shooting, and so he is actually wholly or partially responsible for the “losses, injuries or damages claimed by the plaintiff.”
The application was dismissed at the end of March, but in the third party claim the bar owner revealed that Haji-Hussein had worked at The Pump.
“Haji-Hussein used his experience as a former employee of The Pump Roadhouse to enter the premises without the knowledge of the defendants or their agents or employees”.
The attempted murder and firearm charges against Haji-Hussein are still making their way through the courts, but it appears the lawsuit will continue without him.
The two men suing the bar, Sarain Stoney and Jordan Burns, are alleging there wasn’t enough security to keep them safe, and that the bar owed them a duty of care. The two are seeking unspecified damages for distress and lost income.
In its statement of defence, the owner of the bar is denying almost everything, including that the shooting happened at the bar at all.
Among other things, Soundstage Entertainment Inc. is denying the victims were shot, that they were at the bar that night, that the shooting happened in the bar, that the shooting happened because the bar was negligent, that the victims were hurt or suffered damages or that the injuries were as bad as is being claimed.
“The defendants deny that the incident occurred at or within the vicinity of the premises as alleged or at all,” reads part of one paragraph of the statement of defence. The statement is demanding “strict proof” of every single claim made by the plaintiffs.
The allegations in the statements of claim and defence have not been proven in court.