Karen Sutton vs. Soho House: A High-Stakes Premises Liability Case

Premises Liability at the Poolside: Analyzing the Karen Sutton Lawsuit Against Soho House West Hollywood

A Soho House Insider Legal Editorial

While much of the recent legal discussion around Soho House & Co Inc. (SHCO) has focused on the shareholder action surrounding the take-private merger, the Group's operations are consistently subject to the more prosaic, yet costly, risks associated with running luxury physical venues: premises liability.

One such ongoing action in the heart of the U.S. market is the case of Karen Sutton Vs Soho House West Hollywood, LLC, et al.. Filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Courts, this lawsuit serves as a prime example of the high-stakes torts litigation routinely managed by the Group's legal team in the Americas.

The Claim: Negligence at the West Hollywood House

The lawsuit was initiated on June 20, 2023, with Karen Sutton named as the Plaintiff. The core of the complaint falls under the legal category of Premises Liability—specifically for "Dangerous Conditions Of Property, Slip/Trip And Fall, Dog Attack, Etc.". The specific causes of action filed against the defendants were negligence and premises liability.

The defendants [1] initially named in the action were Soho House West Hollywood, LLC, and surprisingly, Soho House New York, Inc.. The case is being handled in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse by Judge Daniel M. Crowley. [2]

The Corporate Defense Strategy: Shifting Liability

For a complex, multi-entity corporation like SHCO, the immediate strategic move in such cases is to manage and distribute liability. The docket entries reveal a clear three-pronged defense strategy deployed by the Soho House entities:

1. Denial and Answer: On October 6, 2023, the named Soho House entities filed a formal Answer to the complaint.

2. Cross-Complaint for Indemnity [3]: Simultaneously, Soho House West Hollywood, LLC and Soho House New York, Inc. filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-10. This cross-complaint asserted claims for implied indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. This is standard [3] procedural maneuvering, essentially arguing: if the court finds us liable for damages, the actual financial responsibility should fall to another party who was partially at fault.

3. Targeting the Builders: This indemnity strategy gained specific focus when the Plaintiff amended the complaint on October 18, 2024, to formally include McGuire Builders, Inc. as Doe 1. By serving the builder [3], the Plaintiff formally linked the alleged dangerous condition to the construction or installation process, aligning with the potential liability shift anticipated by Soho House's cross-complaint.

This tactical deployment of cross-complaints highlights the company's rigorous approach to tort litigation, immediately seeking to push financial exposure outside the core operating entities onto contractors or other third parties involved in the property's upkeep or construction.

Looking Forward

As of the latest court filings referenced, the litigation is actively proceeding in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The case, Karen Sutton vs. Soho House West Hollywood, LLC, et al., is being heard under Judge Daniel M. Crowley at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The docket shows ongoing action [4], including a Tentative Ruling scheduled for September 9, 2025, indicating the case is reaching critical pre-trial milestones.

For the "Soho House Insider [5]," the Sutton lawsuit underscores two key points of operational risk:

• Location Vulnerability: High-traffic, highly visible locations like Soho House West Hollywood face continuous scrutiny, and any lapse in premises maintenance can lead to costly tort claims.
• Inter-Entity Exposure [4]: The naming of both the West Hollywood and New York LLCs in the original complaint shows how plaintiffs frequently attempt to link operational entities across the wider SHCO structure.

While the ultimate [4] financial outcome of this premises liability dispute remains to be seen, the procedural defense mounted by the Group demonstrates a sophisticated legal effort to protect the company's balance sheet by directing accountability toward external partners, such as the builders, implicated in the alleged dangerous condition. [4]