The Baez family says a series of decisions by an on-duty employee transformed a perceived slight into a fatal encounter.
FLORIDA CITY, Fla. — Minutes before gunfire sent shoppers running through a South Florida Walmart, the dispute had amounted to little more than a blocked aisle, a look and words that an employee believed were threatening, according to a lawsuit that seeks to reconstruct how the encounter became deadly.
The July 19, 2023, shooting killed Nathaniel Baez, 23, wounded a 72-year-old bystander in the foot and triggered a police investigation that led to three arrests. More than three years later, Baez’s family is using a civil negligence case to focus on the steps between the first interaction and the shooting. Its central allegation is that Walmart employee Roberto Acevedo could have reported his concerns to a manager but instead summoned people from outside the store, including a man who allegedly arrived armed. Walmart has not admitted those claims, and the family’s description of the employee’s decisions remains an allegation in pending civil litigation.
The sequence began in a store aisle, according to the plaintiffs. Acevedo, then 20, was working as a digital shopper, collecting products for online orders with a large cart. The lawsuit says employees in that role were instructed to keep the cart from obstructing customers. On that afternoon, however, the filing alleges the cart was positioned in a way that required Baez, several friends and a small child to squeeze between it and a freezer. Acevedo later maintained that one person in the group glared at him and muttered something containing an obscenity while passing, according to the filing.
What Acevedo believed about that encounter became the next turning point. The lawsuit says he concluded that the group might “jump” him, although the plaintiffs contend the shoppers were not aware he regarded the exchange as a serious threat. The family’s filing says Walmart employees who perceive violence or a potential threat are expected to notify salaried management or, if necessary, police. The plaintiffs argue that this procedure existed precisely to prevent workers from trying to manage threatening situations on their own. No public record reviewed for this article establishes that Walmart management was alerted to the dispute before the later confrontation.
Instead, according to the lawsuit, Acevedo went to the back of the store, retrieved his phone and began making calls. The filing says he first contacted his sister, then his brother and then his brother’s girlfriend, who was with Steve Lestin and Ji’mari Hodge. The family alleges that Acevedo brought the men into the dispute rather than seeking help from a supervisor. The filing also alleges that Acevedo knew Lestin frequently carried a gun. It says Hodge had previously been arrested in a firearm case. Those assertions are part of the plaintiffs’ effort to show that calling the men created an obvious risk, but they have not been adjudicated as facts in the civil case.
The confrontation changed again when Lestin and Hodge reached the store. According to the plaintiffs, the two met Acevedo and went looking for Baez’s group. The filing says they approached while one member of the shopping party was holding a small child. That person handed the child to someone else as the approaching men questioned the group about its problem with Acevedo. The lawsuit portrays that moment as the point when a perceived workplace concern became a deliberate face-to-face confrontation involving people who had not been part of the initial aisle encounter.
Contemporary police accounts and surveillance video establish what followed in broader terms. A group gathered near the front registers, an argument turned into a fight, and shots were fired. Local 10 video from the store showed people clustered in an aisle before punches were exchanged and a man began shooting. Police said Lestin fired several times. Baez was hit, and a 72-year-old man who was not part of the dispute was struck in the foot. The surviving victim was later released from a hospital, local reports said.
The sound of gunfire caused panic elsewhere in the store. Witnesses described shoppers running for exits. A woman suffered a head injury in a fall, and emergency crews treated other people for minor injuries sustained during the rush, according to reporting at the time. The Miami Herald reported that Baez was taken to a hospital and died a little more than an hour after the shooting. The sudden movement of customers and emergency responders underscored a part of the case that extends beyond the original two groups: once gunfire began in the crowded retail space, uninvolved shoppers were also placed at risk.
Police arrested Lestin, Acevedo and Hodge. Lestin, then 25, was identified by investigators as the shooter. Local reports said police accused him of second-degree murder and an attempted-murder offense and that an arrest report said he admitted firing the gun. Acevedo and Hodge were accused of battery in connection with the physical confrontation. WSVN reported at the time that police believed Acevedo and Hodge helped instigate the fight. Each criminal accusation must be proved independently, and the civil lawsuit does not itself establish criminal responsibility.
The family’s lawsuit moves backward from the shooting to ask whether it could have been prevented before Lestin ever entered the store. Attorney Todd Michaels has argued that the decisive failure happened when Acevedo did not contact a manager. Michaels told Local 10 that Acevedo believed the shoppers posed a threat and should have followed the procedure for reporting that concern. The plaintiffs say management could have removed Acevedo from the sales floor, observed Baez’s group or contacted law enforcement if the circumstances required it. Instead, the lawsuit alleges, Acevedo created a second group and brought it into the dispute.
That theory is important because the family is not suing only the individuals who allegedly took part in the confrontation. It is also trying to connect an employee’s on-duty conduct to Walmart’s broader legal duty to customers. The estate alleges Walmart was obligated to keep its premises reasonably safe and to enforce procedures intended to prevent workplace conflicts from becoming violent. Whether Acevedo was acting within the legal scope of his employment, whether Walmart could reasonably have anticipated the danger and whether the company’s conduct legally caused Baez’s death are issues for the civil proceedings rather than established conclusions.
The lawsuit also raises questions about Acevedo’s work history. A filing cited by Law&Crime alleges he had a troubled past before Walmart hired him and says he had reported another store altercation shortly before Baez’s death. The plaintiffs appear to regard those facts as relevant to what Walmart knew or should have known. The available sources reviewed for this article do not establish that company managers expected Acevedo to call outsiders, knew Lestin would come to the store or had advance notice that anyone would arrive with a firearm.
Walmart said shortly after the 2023 shooting that it was saddened by what happened and that its thoughts were with Baez’s loved ones. The company said one associate had been suspended and that Walmart would continue cooperating with law enforcement. It did not address the later negligence allegations in that statement. Law&Crime reported in August 2026 that Walmart had not responded to its request for comment on the lawsuit.
The civil case, filed in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, is being pursued by Samuel A. Baez and Betsabe Santos Martinez as representatives of Baez’s estate. Court filings show that the plaintiffs requested a jury trial in January 2026 and estimated five days would be needed. Discovery continued later in the year, including requests for Walmart employment and scheduling information connected to Acevedo. The records reviewed for this article list the case as open and do not show a final judgment determining whether Walmart or the individual defendants are civilly liable.
The shooting itself unfolded in seconds once the physical fight began. The lawsuit, by contrast, is focused on everything that happened before those seconds: the cart, the perceived insult, the employee’s fear, the calls and the decision to bring other people into the store. Those steps are now at the center of a jury-trial request that asks whether an avoidable escalation inside an ordinary retail workplace ultimately became Walmart’s legal responsibility.
Author note: Last updated Sept. 28, 2026.