HOLYOKE, Mass. — Nearly three years after a tragic shooting at the Holyoke Mall claimed the life of a nail technician, a lawsuit has been filed by his widow, alleging negligence on the part of the mall, its security team, and the individual accused of the shooting.
Michael Tran, 33, was working at the Touch of Beauty Hair and Nail Salon on January 28, 2023, when a violent altercation erupted between a customer and another man. Tran was struck by gunfire during this unexpected incident, which had no connection to him. He leaves behind a grieving wife and a young son.
Court records reveal a disturbing history of violence at the mall leading up to Tran’s death. In the three years prior, police responded to an average of five calls per week related to incidents at the shopping center, including nine gun-related occurrences. Additionally, over 140 calls pertained to disturbances. The mall was also the scene of another fatal shooting in 2020.
The lawsuit claims that the mall, along with its security provider, was aware of this troubling pattern of violence yet failed to implement adequate safety measures. As outlined in the complaint, the facility had a stated no-gun policy, but the plaintiff argues that the policy lacked proper communication and enforcement, rendering it ineffective.
Allied Universal, the security firm responsible for the mall’s protection, asserts that it employs advanced technology and strategies to ensure the safety of visitors. However, the lawsuit alleges that these measures were insufficient to prevent the tragic events that unfolded.
The lawsuit seeks both compensatory and punitive damages, claiming gross negligence contributed to Tran’s wrongful death. In light of this lawsuit, many are questioning the adequacy of security practices at the mall and whether more stringent measures could have prevented such a tragedy.
As the community grapples with the aftermath of this loss, Western Mass News has reached out to the mall for a response but has yet to receive any comment from its management. The case raises broader concerns about safety in public spaces and the responsibility of establishments to safeguard their patrons.