Behr v. RB Minneapolis Management, LLC
Dominique Behr and Tessa Behr v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc., and Radisson Hotels Management Company, LLC, successor in liability for RB Minneapolis Management LLC
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:24-cv-02183
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 19
In Behr v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc., Judge Tostrud dismissed with prejudice the negligence lawsuit brought by sisters Dominique and Tessa Behr against a hotel and its security company after finding that, even with new allegations added, the plaintiffs still could not show it was reasonably foreseeable that five men who entered the Radisson Blu Hotel in Minneapolis would brutally assault them.
Hotel guests who suffer injuries from third-party criminal attacks on hotel premises, as well as hotels and their contracted security companies facing negligence claims in Minnesota for failures to prevent such attacks. The ruling reinforces that under Minnesota law, foreseeability of a specific type of violent crime must be shown with particularity — general crime statistics, policy violations, and minor suspicious behaviors are insufficient to impose a duty to protect guests from violent third parties.
What happened
In Behr v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc., sisters Dominique and Tessa Behr sued Radisson Hotels Management Company and G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. — the security contractor at the Radisson Blu Hotel in downtown Minneapolis — for negligence after five men gained entry to their hotel room in February 2021 and subjected them to hours of savage sexual assault and battery, during which Tessa was also shot multiple times. The Behrs argued that the hotel and security company failed to protect them, pointing to the men's suspicious appearance (dark clothing, masks, apparent intoxication, young ages, a single backpack), prior police calls to the hotel for various incidents, and rising violent crime in downtown Minneapolis. This was the second attempt by the Behrs to state a valid legal claim; an earlier version of their complaint had been dismissed and they were given a chance to add new facts.
Under Minnesota law, a hotel generally owes its guests a duty to protect them from foreseeable dangers posed by third parties. However, the court explained that foreseeability must be assessed narrowly — the question is not whether some harm was conceivable in general, but whether a reasonable person could have specifically expected these men to commit a violent assault. The court analyzed each new allegation one by one: dark clothing and hands in pockets are ordinary winter behaviors; masks were legally required indoors in Minnesota at the time due to COVID-19; the concealed firearm and whiskey bottle were not visible to hotel staff; apparent intoxication or underage drinking, without aggressive or threatening behavior, does not make a violent assault foreseeable; curfew violations and hotel policy violations (like exceeding the room's occupancy limit) do not predict violence; and general crime statistics or prior unrelated incidents at the hotel do not specifically foreshadow this type of attack. The court also rejected the argument that the defendants' own conduct created liability, finding that everything they allegedly did wrong — failing to verify room key registration, skipping floor patrols, not checking IDs — was passive inaction rather than the kind of active wrongdoing Minnesota law requires to create liability for a third party's harm.
Judge Tostrud granted both motions to dismiss and dismissed the entire Second Amended Complaint with prejudice, meaning the Behrs cannot file this lawsuit again. The court found dismissal with prejudice appropriate because the Behrs had already amended their complaint twice — the second time after the court specifically identified the factual gaps they needed to fill — and still had not added allegations sufficient to make their claims legally viable. The Behrs had not requested another opportunity to amend, nor had they indicated what new facts they could add to fix the problems the court identified.
The detailed version
- Behr v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-2183 (ECT/EMB), United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
- Eric C. Tostrud
- October 3, 2025
Background and Procedural History Plaintiffs Dominique and Tessa Behr, sisters, spent the night of February 19–20, 2021, at the Radisson Blu Downtown Minneapolis Hotel. Five males gained access to their room and assaulted them over several hours in what the complaint describes as savage sexual assaults, battery, and a shooting of Tessa Behr. The Behrs sued Radisson Hotels Management Company, LLC (successor to the hotel entity) and G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. (the hotel's contracted security provider), alleging negligence.
This was the second round of motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows a defendant to seek dismissal when a complaint fails to state a legally sufficient claim. In the first round, Judge Tostrud had dismissed the First Amended Complaint primarily because it failed to plausibly allege foreseeability of the assault or that either defendant committed "misfeasance" (active wrongdoing, as opposed to mere failure to act). The Behrs were permitted to file a Second Amended Complaint and did so, adding new factual allegations about the assailants' appearance and behavior and the hotel's security policies.
Legal Framework All claims sounded in negligence. Under Minnesota law, a negligence plaintiff must show: (1) a duty of care, (2) breach of that duty, (3) injury, and (4) causation. Ordinarily, a person owes no duty to protect another from a third party's harmful conduct. Two exceptions exist: (a) a "special relationship" between the plaintiff and defendant (here, the hotel-guest relationship, which Minnesota recognizes), and (b) a duty arising from the defendant's "own conduct" creating a foreseeable risk. For both exceptions, when the harm is caused by a third party, foreseeability must be assessed narrowly — whether the specific injury was "objectively reasonable to expect," not merely conceivable.
For the "own conduct" exception, the defendant's conduct must rise to "misfeasance" (active wrongdoing that causes positive injury), not mere "nonfeasance" (passive failure to act). Fenrich v. The Blake School, 920 N.W.2d 195, 201–03 (Minn. 2018).
Analysis of Foreseeability The court systematically evaluated each new allegation in the Second Amended Complaint:
- Dark clothing and appearance: The court found no basis to connect ordinary winter clothing (puffer jacket, baseball cap, sweatsuit) to foreseeability of violent crime. The Behrs did not allege these items were gang-affiliated or otherwise suggestive of violence. - Hands in pockets: Described as common behavior on a winter evening in Minnesota; not foreseeable of assault without more. - Masks: In February 2021, Minnesota state emergency orders mandated face coverings in hotel lobbies due to COVID-19. Masks did not indicate an intent to conceal identity for criminal purposes. - Concealed firearm and whiskey: Because these items were concealed, hotel staff could not have observed them, so their existence could not have put anyone on notice. - Apparent intoxication: The court acknowledged one male appeared to be stumbling, suggesting possible unlawful underage drinking. However, intoxication alone — without aggressive, threatening, or belligerent behavior — does not make a violent assault objectively foreseeable. The court analogized to bar-injury case law requiring evidence of belligerence or disorderly conduct, not mere intoxication. It also cited J.F. ex rel. S.F. v. Carnival Corp., 141 F.4th 1164 (11th Cir. 2025), for the proposition that an incident "different in kind" (underage drinking vs. violent assault) cannot constitute constructive notice of the more serious risk. - Age and hotel age policy: The males appeared to be under 21, the hotel's minimum check-in age. The court held that violating an internal hotel policy does not carry the force of law and does not predict violence. - Curfew violation: One male appeared to be a juvenile subject to a Hennepin County midnight weekend curfew. The court found the connection between curfew violations and violent assault too attenuated under Minnesota's narrow foreseeability standard, citing case law from other jurisdictions reaching similar conclusions. - Prior criminal activity at the hotel and in downtown Minneapolis: The Second Amended Complaint alleged a 21% increase in downtown violent crime in 2021 and numerous police calls to the hotel in the prior seven months, including two prior assaults. The court found these allegations too general — they did not connect prior incidents to the specific type of harm the Behrs suffered. The court distinguished Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 95 N.W.2d 657 (Minn. 1959) (hotel knew guests were dropping items from upper floors, making pedestrian injury foreseeable — same type of misconduct repeated), and Wiley v. Fleet Farm, No. 24-cv-4135, 2025 WL 2601952 (D. Minn. Sep. 9, 2025) (sheriff predicted a shooting; numerous prior violent incidents at bar — specific, predictive facts). Neither of those factual profiles was present here. - Marijuana odor: Hotel staff were told about a marijuana smell before the assault. The court rejected a theory that this should have prompted an investigation that would have discovered the assault, noting this is not how Minnesota's narrow foreseeability analysis works.
Analysis of Misfeasance vs. Nonfeasance The Behrs also argued that G4S's and Radisson's own conduct created liability. The court found all alleged failures — not verifying room keys against the registry, not checking IDs, not conducting floor patrols, not enforcing occupancy limits, not investigating after the marijuana report — to be "nonfeasance" (passive inaction) rather than "misfeasance" (active wrongdoing). Under Fenrich, nonfeasance cannot create liability for a third party's harm.
Derivative Claims The Behrs' respondeat superior claim (that G4S is vicariously liable for its employees' negligence) and apparent-authority claim (that Radisson is liable for G4S's negligence) both failed as derivative claims, because no direct negligence liability was established.
Disposition Both motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) were GRANTED. The Second Amended Complaint was DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE — meaning the Behrs cannot refile this lawsuit. The court found with-prejudice dismissal appropriate because the Behrs had amended twice (the second time with specific guidance from the court identifying pleading gaps), had not requested a further opportunity to amend, and had not indicated what additional facts could cure the identified deficiencies. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 19-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.