In whose favor should the court rule? Is the determi$-$ nation of whether a duty is present dependent on whether there were any security issues at all in that location, or does a duty arise only if the partigular harm suffered by the plaintiff was foreseeable? If the court holds that the defendants did not have a duty to prevent the attack, can they still be held liable for premises liability? $[$Lester v$.$ IPC International Corp., $2013$ WL $990583($C$.$D$.$ Cal. Mar. $12,2013).]$