In Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224, the plaintiff and his wife were patrons at a bar. Another patron, Joseph (a stranger to plaintiff), and several of Joseph's companions "stared at plaintiff on numerous occasions, and plaintiff stared back at the group. There was no verbal or physical interaction between plaintiff and Joseph or his companions at that time." (Delgado, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 231.) Plaintiff became uncomfortable and decided to leave. His wife notified the security guard on duty, Nichols, that "there was going to be a fight." Nichols had independently observed the behavior between plaintiff and Joseph, and had also concluded that a fight was likely. "Nichols determined that, under the circumstances, it would be best to ask plaintiff and his wife to leave, and Nichols made that request." (Ibid.) Plaintiff and his wife left the bar; Nichols neither escorted the couple to their car in the bar's parking lot, nor notified the security guard who had earlier been posted outside of the situation. Plaintiff suffered serious injuries when he was assaulted by Joseph and 12 to 20 additional men who were present in the parking lot and responded to Joseph's call to join the attack. Plaintiff sued the bar for premises liability, arguing both that the defendant had a duty to provide a security guard, which duty was breached because the second guard was not at his post in the parking lot, and that the bar had a separate and distinct duty to protect plaintiff once his wife notified Nichols of the "potential problem prior to its occurrence." (Delgado, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 233.) Employing the analysis explicated in Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, and its progeny, the court concluded that, because there were no "prior similar incidents or other indications of a reasonably foreseeable risk of violent criminal assaults in that location, we cannot conclude defendants were required to secure the area against such crime." (Id. at p. 240)