Connecticut Family Wins $5.7 Million in Hartford Taco Bell Shooting Case

A threat made in front of a manager at a Flatbush Avenue Taco Bell on the morning of November 15, 2020, went without consequence. Hours later, Armando Perez fired 17 shots in the restaurant parking lot. A Hartford Superior Court jury assigned a dollar figure to that gap in management response: $5.7 million.

The jury deliberated about 4½ hours before ruling against G.F. Enterprise LLC, the Florida-based franchise owner that operated the Hartford location, and two of its managers, Keyla Singh and Narsha Wood. The verdict awarded $2.6 million to Victor Arroyo, who was shot in the heel; $2.4 million to Samuel Martinez, who was shot in the knee and arm; and $700,000 to Doris Arroyo-Khem for the emotional distress she endured after witnessing the attack.

The lawsuit, filed by the Flood Law Firm, alleged that G.F. Enterprise made the shooting possible through negligent hiring. The complaint contended the franchise owner failed to conduct a proper criminal background check on Perez despite known gang affiliations. In a notable evidentiary wrinkle, Perez's prior criminal history was ruled inadmissible at trial. What jurors were permitted to consider, according to the Flood Law Firm, were the "visible gang tattoos" Perez allegedly has. They still returned a verdict against the franchise and its managers in under five hours.

Perez, now 40, pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree assault and was sentenced to seven years in prison in February 2022. His maximum release date, according to the state Department of Correction, is April 16, 2027.

The detail that likely carried the most weight with jurors was what preceded the parking lot. According to the complaint, Perez had argued with Martinez, a fellow Taco Bell employee, and explicitly threatened him with violence in front of a manager that same morning. When Martinez returned to the restaurant later to pick up his girlfriend, Perez was waiting. That sequence, a verbal threat witnessed by management followed by no documented intervention, is precisely the record that makes negligent supervision claims difficult to defend.

"We want to thank the jury for their service and for reaching a verdict in our favor," Martinez, Arroyo and Arroyo-Khem said in a statement issued through the Flood Law Firm. The attorney representing G.F. Enterprise and the two managers was not available for comment.

The verdict draws a direct line for franchise operators between what happens on the floor and what happens in the parking lot. When a worker threatens a colleague in front of management, that moment creates a documented duty to act. Failing to escalate, whether through contacting law enforcement, removing the employee from the premises, or at minimum filing a written incident report, leaves a franchise owner exposed to precisely the liability theory that produced this outcome. G.F. Enterprise's case established that a manager who witnesses a credible threat and takes no documented action bears direct responsibility for what follows.