Marlene Bajak, now 88, is suing Victra and related corporate entities over the June 12, 2025 attack at the Verizon-branded store at 13455 Poway Road. The employee, Joshua Scott Miller, has already pleaded guilty in a separate criminal case to felony elder abuse and admitted a great-bodily-injury allegation. The civil trial will now ask a jury to decide whether the company that operated the store bears responsibility for what happened and for the injuries Bajak says continue to affect her life.
Trial is scheduled to begin Tuesday, July 14, at 2:30pm in Department 2103 of San Diego Superior Court’s downtown courthouse, according to Bajak’s attorneys.
The case is unusually stark because the central physical encounter is not dependent solely on conflicting recollections. Store surveillance cameras recorded it. That footage was previously shown during Miller’s criminal proceedings, where a judge described the recording as “pretty dramatic” and “a pretty graphic video.”
According to Bajak’s sworn account, she realized she had lost her cellphone while visiting a Walmart in Poway. A Walmart employee suggested she try the Verizon store across the street, so she entered the location seeking help locating the device. Bajak said she had never previously visited that store.
The civil complaint alleges Bajak waited nearly an hour before Miller assisted her. It describes Miller as already visibly agitated following an interaction with another customer and alleges that he became hostile when Bajak asked whether Verizon could help locate her missing phone.
Bajak’s attorney says the exchange escalated after Miller discussed a phone-location application and Bajak interpreted him as saying he used similar technology to monitor his girlfriend without her knowledge. Bajak reportedly replied that such conduct sounded like stalking.
What followed is partly documented in the surveillance footage and partly described in the complaint, police records and hearing transcripts.
The complaint alleges Miller cursed at Bajak, ordered her to leave and struck her in the head near the store entrance. Bajak fell, hit the ground and lost consciousness. She later said she remembered nothing after the blow until awakening in an ambulance.
A San Diego County Sheriff’s Office report identifies Bajak as 87 at the time and lists her injuries as including apparent broken bones, another major injury and unconsciousness. Miller, then 30, was arrested at the store on suspicion of felony elder abuse and booked into San Diego Central Jail.
According to the civil complaint, Bajak was transported to Palomar Medical Center and diagnosed with a fractured shoulder bone, broken tooth, cranial hematoma and damage to an artery in her head. Her attorneys additionally contend that the way Miller attempted to pull her from the ground contributed to injuries to her shoulders. Those allegations will be among the issues presented to jurors.
Bajak’s attorneys characterize the surveillance recording as showing Miller striking her with his right hand and stepping into the blow, causing her to collapse outside the doorway.
They further allege that Miller unsuccessfully attempted to lift her with one arm, then pulled her upward with both arms while she remained disoriented. The plaintiff’s account says Bajak wandered between a column, the storefront and eventually her vehicle while Miller returned inside.
The lawsuit also accuses Miller of failing to call police or emergency medical services. According to Bajak’s counsel, a passerby ultimately contacted authorities after entering the store and speaking with Miller.
Some of the most inflammatory details—including an alleged remark Miller made to that passerby and statements attributed to him during the police investigation—are expected to be contested or placed in fuller context during trial. SanDiegoVille is describing those statements as allegations rather than established civil findings.
What is established is that prosecutors introduced the Verizon surveillance footage during Miller’s November 2025 hearing. The court record identifies the video as Exhibit 1, and the prosecutor told the judge it “captures the crime” and provides context for the encounter.
Before pleading guilty, Miller asked the criminal court to grant him mental-health diversion under California law. Diversion could have paused the prosecution while he completed court-ordered treatment and potentially led to dismissal if he successfully finished the program.
His defense attorney argued that Miller had no prior criminal history, had received legitimate mental-health diagnoses and could benefit from medication, cognitive behavioral therapy, anger-management treatment and an intensive outpatient program. Counsel described the attack as a reactionary offense connected to Miller’s diagnosed condition.
Prosecutors opposed diversion, questioning whether the evidence sufficiently connected Miller’s mental disorder to the offense and whether the proposed treatment plan satisfied the statutory requirements. The hearing transcript shows the court was particularly focused on whether the condition played a significant role in the crime and whether Miller’s conduct would respond to treatment.
Bajak appeared in court and exercised her right to speak about the attack and its consequences. The surveillance video was also presented for the judge’s consideration.
The diversion request was not ultimately how the criminal case concluded. On December 4, 2025, Miller appeared in San Diego Superior Court and agreed to resolve the case by pleading guilty.
The hearing transcript shows Miller pleaded guilty to violating California Penal Code Section 368(b)(1), felony elder abuse, and admitted an allegation that the crime caused great bodily injury. In exchange, the court agreed to consider probation and alternatives to custody, with a maximum possible custody term of two years under the plea agreement.
The guilty plea resolved Miller’s criminal liability, but it did not resolve whether Victra itself is financially or legally responsible. That question is now headed to a civil jury.
Bajak filed her verified complaint in July 2025 against Miller, ABC Phones of North Carolina doing business as Victra, A2Z Wireless Holdings and several Verizon-related entities.
The lawsuit asserts claims for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, elder abuse, negligence, premises liability and violations of California civil-rights statutes.
The complaint alleges Victra operated and managed the Poway store and was responsible for hiring, training and supervising its employees, including Miller. It further alleges Miller was on duty, wearing company-branded clothing and interacting with Bajak as a customer when the attack occurred.
A particularly significant allegation expected to surface at trial is that internal company records showed Miller had been slated for termination shortly before the assault, but that the decision was allegedly overridden. Bajak’s lawyers contend those employment records support claims that Victra knew or should have known Miller presented a risk. That allegation has not yet been adjudicated and Victra disputes liability.
Verizon was initially named in the lawsuit, but it was later dismissed after the litigation distinguished the Verizon-branded location from a corporate Verizon store. The Poway business was an authorized retailer operated by Victra, and Verizon did not control its ordinary day-to-day staffing and operations, according to the parties’ later filings.
Victra filed a general denial, disputing that Bajak was harmed by any act or omission attributable to the company and denying that it is vicariously responsible for Miller’s conduct. The company also asserted a lengthy series of affirmative defenses.
Among them, Victra alleged that Bajak’s own negligence contributed to or caused her injuries; that the company is not responsible for the acts of others; that she assumed the risk of the incident; that Victra owed her no legal duty; and that another person or intervening event may have caused some or all of her alleged damages.
Those defenses have drawn outrage from Bajak’s attorneys, who argue they amount to blaming an elderly customer for being struck by an employee while seeking assistance.
It is important to distinguish an affirmative defense from a factual ruling. Civil defendants routinely plead numerous alternative and sometimes inconsistent defenses at the beginning of litigation to preserve legal arguments. Their inclusion does not mean a judge or jury has accepted them, and Victra may not pursue every pleaded defense at trial.
Still, the language creates a sharp contrast with Miller’s criminal admission that he committed felony elder abuse and caused great bodily injury.
Before the case reached trial, the defendants sought to compel Bajak into private arbitration based on an alleged Verizon customer agreement.
Bajak opposed the motion, arguing she had never agreed to arbitrate an assault claim against Victra or its employee and that the documents presented by the defense did not establish a valid agreement covering the dispute.
Her opposition noted that the alleged customer agreement was unsigned, that Bajak denied assenting to it and that one version produced in the case was dated after the attack. It also argued that Victra and the other defendants were not parties to any purported agreement between Bajak and a separate Verizon entity.
The effort to compel arbitration failed, allowing the lawsuit to remain in public court and proceed toward a jury trial.
Miller’s guilt is no longer the central unresolved question. He admitted felony elder abuse in criminal court.
The civil case instead turns on whether his employer can be held responsible under theories including negligent hiring, supervision and retention, ratification of employee conduct, premises liability and vicarious liability.
Victra is expected to argue that striking Bajak was an independent, unauthorized act outside the legitimate scope of Miller’s work and that the company should not be forced to pay damages for conduct it neither directed nor approved.
Bajak’s attorneys are expected to counter that the encounter arose directly from Miller’s assigned customer-service duties, occurred while he was on the clock and escalated as he removed a customer from the business. They also intend to examine what Victra knew about Miller before the attack, how it responded immediately afterward and whether corporate personnel prioritized internal risk management over checking on the injured customer.
The jury may also hear evidence about the company’s internal response after Miller returned to the store, including communications he allegedly sent to management while Bajak remained outside injured and confused.
The surveillance video will almost certainly become the emotional center of the trial. But the larger legal dispute is about what obligations a national retailer owes customers when an employee becomes violent and whether a company may distance itself from that conduct after placing the employee in a public-facing position.
Bajak’s lawyers say Victra never contacted her to ask about her condition or offer an apology. The company’s court filings deny legal responsibility but do not resolve the human question of how an 87-year-old woman seeking help with a missing telephone ended up unconscious outside a store bearing one of the country’s most recognizable telecommunications brands.
The criminal court has already established that a felony occurred. Beginning Tuesday, a San Diego jury will be asked to decide who else, if anyone, must answer for it.
Originally published on July 14, 2026.
