El Paso Matters
by Robert Moore
Most of the plaintiffs suing Walmart and a bank as a result of the 2019 El Paso mass shooting have reached settlements in recent weeks, court records show. But the retail giant ended potential talks with 29 other plaintiffs following an appeals court ruling that paused the civil court proceedings.
The latest developments create the possibility that most of the Walmart plaintiffs will soon settle their claims stemming from the mass shooting, while others face months of uncertainty over the future of their claims. The only difference between the two groups appears to be when their court-ordered mediation sessions were set.
In May, Walmart and its Texas division reached settlements with 63 plaintiffs following court-ordered mediation, according to court records. But Walmart canceled mediation meetings with other groups of plaintiffs after the El Paso-based 8th Court of Appeals granted a stay of legal actions May 18, pausing the legal proceedings while it considered a request from Walmart to appeal rulings from the El Paso district judge overseeing the lawsuits, according to a filing by attorneys representing 18 plaintiffs.
“Before this court stayed the underlying case, Walmart was settling it. Walmart mediated and resolved the claims of most of the plaintiffs, and it had scheduled mediations of movants’ claims for May 19 and May 29, 2026.
After the stay, however, Walmart canceled both mediations, according to a May 26 motion from two groups of attorneys. The motion asked the appeals court to order Walmart to enter mediation with the 18 plaintiffs they represent. The court records say another 11 plaintiffs also have not yet gone to mediation, but their attorneys didn’t join in the so-far unsuccessful attempt to get the appellate court to order Walmart to mediation.
In a May 29 response, Walmart attorneys said that the court’s stay of legal proceedings meant that mediation should be put on hold. On June 2, the 8th Court of Appeals issued a brief order denying the request to require Walmart to engage in mediation.
Walmart didn’t respond to questions from El Paso Matters about why it settled with some plaintiffs and canceled scheduled mediations with others, saying its positions were outlined in court records.
“We remain heartbroken following this tragic event, and our sympathies continue to go out to everyone impacted,” a Walmart spokesperson said.
SEE ALSO: An El Paso mass shooter killed their loved ones. They hugged him
The lawsuits, which were filed by family members of those killed in the attack as well as people who were wounded, allege that Walmart and the bank inside the store didn’t have sufficient protections in place the day of the attack and didn’t take steps that could have possibly reduced the carnage.
A group of attorneys representing 18 of the plaintiffs who have yet to have a mediation session with Walmart said they are focusing on convincing the appeals court to allow the lawsuits to move forward.
“Our clients look forward to presenting arguments to the court of appeals as to why the stay of the civil case is not warranted under existing law. We will continue to seek full justice for our clients who were victims of the August 3rd tragedy,” said the statement by El Paso attorneys Clark Harmonson, Stephen Stewart, Connie Flores and Jessica Mendez.
The status of the agreed-upon settlements isn’t clear in court filings, but lawyers for 14 of the 63 plaintiffs who reached agreements filed a notice of settlement May 26 with 448th District Judge Sergio Enriquez, the trial court judge. The notice said the parties expect the settlement agreements to be finalized within 60 days.
The settlements, and Walmart’s cancellation of mediations that could have led to other settlements, are the latest twist for dozens of families who have been locked in court for almost seven years.
On Aug. 3, 2019, Patrick Crusius of Allen, Texas, drove 10 hours to El Paso and attacked Saturday shoppers at the Walmart near Cielo Vista Mall, killing 23 people and wounding 22 others. Shortly before opening fire, Crusius posted a screed on a website frequented by white nationalists saying he was acting to stop what he called “the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”
He pleaded guilty in 2023 to federal weapons and hate crimes charges, and in 2025 to state charges of capital murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
PODCAST: As Walmart shooting case ends, victims face gunman in court
Both guilty pleas came after prosecutors agreed not to seek the death penalty. Crusius is serving 113 life sentences at a state prison in East Texas, many of them carrying no possibility of parole.
Sheriff Oscar Ugarte escorted Patrick Crusius out of 409th District Court on Tuesday, April 22, 2025, after two days of hearings that included his guilty plea and multiple life prison sentences. (Ruben R. Ramirez/El Paso Inc)
Dozens of relatives of those killed, and many of those who survived gunshot wounds, filed civil suits against Crusius and Walmart, with some also suing First Convenience Bank, which had a branch in the Walmart where many of those killed and injured were shot. Some of the settlements also include agreements with the bank, according to court records.
The civil cases were essentially put on hold until the criminal cases were completed.
In March 2026, Enriquez denied Walmart’s request for summary judgment – a decision by the court without a full trial, which would have essentially dismissed the case. Enriquez ordered the parties to mediation for possible settlements. He set a trial date for July 8.
Enriquez also denied a request from Walmart to pause proceedings while the Texas Supreme Court considered a lawsuit in another mass shooting case that could impact the El Paso shooting lawsuits.
That case involved a 2023 shooting at an outlet mall in the Dallas suburb of Allen – coincidentally Crusius’ hometown – in which eight people were killed and seven wounded. The high court ruling – which may not come for a year – could determine hat liability retail property owners have in mass shootings.
On Aug. 14, Walmart asked the 8th Court of Appeals to issue a writ of mandamus, a court order directing Enriquez to allow an appeal of his rulings.
The retailer’s lawyers argue that Walmart could not have foreseen the mass shooting because “no murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, shooting, or attempted shooting had ever occurred at or near Store #2201 before Crusius’s attack.”
“Plaintiffs now seek to shift responsibility for Crusius’s horrific crime to Walmart on the theory that Walmart should have prevented Crusius’s attack. But the Walmart relators – the owners of the premises where Crusius perpetrated his crime – are not responsible as a matter of law, because Crusius’s criminal conduct was not foreseeable to Walmart,” the company’s lawyers told the 8th Court of Appeals, reiterating the claim that Enriquez had rejected in denying their motion for summary judgment.
The plaintiffs and defendants have both hired expert witnesses who have given depositions about whether Walmart had taken reasonable steps to secure the store before and during Crusius’ attack.
The plaintiffs’ experts criticized a number of actions or lack of actions by Walmart before and during the shooting, while defense experts said there was little the company could do to prevent or stop Crusius’ attack.
In denying Walmart’s motion for summary judgment, Enriquez essentially ruled that the issue was one for a jury to potentially decide.
The 8th Court of Appeals issued a stay on May 18 that paused trial court proceedings, “pending further order of this court.”
In their appeal, Walmart’s lawyers said “Patrick Crusius alone bears moral and legal responsibility for the unspeakable mass shooting.”
But in the four days between their motion and the court’s stay, Walmart engaged in previously scheduled mediations with several groups of plaintiffs, and those resulted in settlement agreements, court records show.
The mediations were conducted on May 15, 16 and 18 with various groups of plaintiffs, based on the lawyers representing them, according to a filing by attorneys representing 18 of the 29 plaintiffs who haven’t yet gotten to mediation.
Those mediations resulted in settlements with 63 of the plaintiffs. The May 18 mediation and settlements came shortly before the 8th Court of Appeals issued its stay.
“Movants were excluded from the negotiation table, however, compounding the harm these families have endured since August 3, 2019,” the attorneys for the 18 plaintiffs said in their unsuccessful request that the appeals court order Walmart to mediate while the stay was in place.
Terms of the settlements haven’t been made public. Such settlement details are usually kept confidential in high-profile cases.
The plaintiffs and defendants have until June 18 to file arguments with the 8th Court of Appeals about how it should rule on Walmart’s request to challenge the denial of summary judgment, and to delay further proceedings until the Texas Supreme Court rules on the Allen outlet mall shooting case.
Disclosure: In 2019, El Paso Matters was among recipients of a $5,000 matching grant from Walmart during the El Paso Giving Day campaign.
Click here to follow the original article.
City of El Paso Environmental Services Department trash and recycling bins outside a Central El Paso neighborhood. (Dani Prokop/El Paso Matters)
