The negligence case shifts attention from the gunfire itself to what the family says an on-duty employee and retailer should have done beforehand.
FLORIDA CITY, Fla. — More than three years after Nathaniel Baez went shopping at a Walmart and never came home, his family is asking a Miami-Dade County court to examine not only the man accused of shooting him but also the workplace decisions that allegedly set the confrontation in motion.
Baez was 23 when he was fatally shot inside the Florida City store on July 19, 2023. His mother, Betsabe Santos, told Local 10 in August 2026 that the news of her son’s death shattered the family. Now she and Samuel A. Baez, acting as co-personal representatives of his estate, are pursuing a negligent-security lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores East LP and individual defendants connected to the confrontation. Their case argues that the shooting was not merely an unforeseeable act committed by an outsider but the endpoint of an escalation involving a Walmart employee who was working when the trouble began.
The family’s allegations focus on Roberto Acevedo, who was 20 at the time and worked as a digital shopper at the store. According to court filings described by Law&Crime, Acevedo was gathering products for online orders when Baez, friends and a small child encountered his large work cart in an aisle. The filing says the cart obstructed their path and that the shoppers had to squeeze between it and a freezer. Acevedo later claimed someone in the group glared at him and muttered an obscenity, the lawsuit says. He interpreted the encounter as a possible threat and came to believe he might be attacked.
That belief is important to the lawsuit because the family does not argue that an employee must simply ignore a threat. Instead, the plaintiffs say Walmart trained workers to report potential violence or unusual activity to salaried management and, when necessary, police. Their contention is that Acevedo had a recognized safety channel available to him but chose a different course. According to the filing, he retrieved his phone and contacted family members until his message reached Steve Lestin and Ji’mari Hodge, two men outside the store whom the plaintiffs say were summoned to confront the shoppers.
The filing alleges that Acevedo knew Lestin regularly carried a gun. It also points to a prior firearm arrest involving Hodge. The family uses those allegations to argue that bringing the men into the situation made violence more likely. The available court materials do not show that those claims have been accepted as findings, and Walmart has not conceded that it is legally responsible for the men’s conduct. The distinction matters because a civil jury would have to decide disputed facts as well as whether any proven failures by Walmart were sufficiently connected to Baez’s death to create liability.
According to the plaintiffs, Lestin and Hodge came to the store, joined Acevedo and approached Baez’s group. One of Baez’s friends was holding the small child and passed the child to another person as the newcomers arrived, the lawsuit says. The men questioned the shoppers about their interaction with Acevedo. An argument followed. Then came the physical confrontation that surveillance cameras later captured near the front of the store.
Video obtained by Local 10 after the shooting showed people gathering near the registers before fighting broke out and a man opened fire. Police said Baez was hit and a 72-year-old customer who had not been involved in the dispute was shot in the foot. The Miami Herald reported that Baez died at a hospital a little more than an hour later. Other shoppers fled when they heard the shots. A woman sustained a head injury in a fall, and several other people were treated for lesser injuries suffered amid the panic, according to contemporaneous reports.
The police response produced a separate criminal track. Authorities arrested Lestin, Acevedo and Hodge. Investigators identified Lestin as the alleged shooter, and local news reports said an arrest report stated that he admitted firing the gun. He was accused of second-degree murder and an attempted-murder offense. Acevedo and Hodge were accused of battery. Law&Crime reported in August 2026 that those charges were still being described as pending against the men. The criminal allegations are not proof of guilt, and the outcome of the civil case does not depend on treating criminal accusations as established facts.
For Baez’s family, however, the civil suit broadens the frame beyond who pulled the trigger. Attorney Todd Michaels has said the family believes the fatal sequence could have been stopped at the employee-management level. In an interview with Local 10, Michaels said Acevedo believed the group planned to attack him but did not take what the lawyer described as the required step of calling a manager. Instead, Michaels said, the employee contacted armed friends. The plaintiffs contend managers could have kept Acevedo away from the group, watched the shoppers until they left or involved law enforcement if officials believed a genuine threat existed.
The estate is also examining whether Walmart had information about Acevedo before the shooting that should have affected how he was supervised. A filing cited by Law&Crime alleges Acevedo had a violent or troubled history and had reported another altercation in the store shortly before Baez was killed. Those claims may become relevant to arguments about hiring, retention, supervision or foreseeability, but the sources reviewed for this article do not establish that Walmart knew Acevedo would call people to the store or knew an armed person would arrive. The ultimate legal significance of any prior incident remains unresolved.
Walmart’s first public response came shortly after Baez’s death. The retailer said it was saddened by the shooting, expressed sympathy for his loved ones and said one associate had been suspended. Walmart also said it would continue working with law enforcement. That statement was made before the later civil allegations were fully developed. Law&Crime reported Aug. 16 that Walmart had not responded to its request for comment on the lawsuit itself.
The lawsuit has continued through the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court under case number 2024-002671-CA-01. Court records identify the estate, Walmart, Acevedo and Lestin among the parties and show litigation involving Brosnan Risk Consultants Ltd. Corp., a security contractor. In January 2026, the plaintiffs formally asked for a jury trial and said they expected the proceeding to take about five days. Additional discovery filings followed, including requests seeking Walmart records related to Acevedo’s employment and work hours.
That discovery process illustrates why the civil case could reach questions that the immediate criminal investigation did not have to answer. Police were concerned with the confrontation, the shooter and potential criminal responsibility. The estate’s lawsuit can examine company policies, personnel records, training, security arrangements and the sequence of communications before the shooting. Those records may support the family’s theory, Walmart’s defense or both. As of the materials reviewed for this article, no jury had issued a liability finding resolving those disputes.
The case also preserves a distinction between tragedy and legal responsibility. It is undisputed that Baez was killed inside the store and that another customer was wounded. But a civil judgment against Walmart would require more than proof that the death occurred on company property. The family must establish the elements of its claims under Florida law, while Walmart can contest whether Acevedo’s alleged conduct should be attributed to the company, whether the danger was foreseeable and whether any company act or omission legally caused the shooting.
For Santos, the proceedings remain rooted in the personal consequence behind those legal questions. She told Local 10 that the moment doctors told her Baez had died broke apart the family’s world. The lawsuit cannot change what happened on July 19, 2023. Its purpose now is to determine, through evidence and ultimately a court or jury, whether the fatal confrontation reflected an individual chain of choices alone or a safety failure for which the retailer also bears civil responsibility.
The court-record sources reviewed for this article continue to list the negligent-security action as open. The plaintiffs have requested a jury trial, and discovery activity continued in 2026. No final judgment establishing Walmart’s liability appears in the materials reviewed, leaving the central accusations — including what Walmart knew, what Acevedo was trained to do and whether the company could have prevented the confrontation — for the litigation to resolve.
Author note: Last updated Sept. 28, 2026.