CHARLOTTE (QUEEN CITY NEWS) — In the ongoing legal battle surrounding the untimely death of Shanquella Robinson, Khalil Cooke, one of the individuals linked to the case, has filed a motion to dismiss the wrongful death lawsuit.

Cooke, who is the fourth defendant in the case, is arguing that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina is an improper venue to hear the case.

This motion, filed on March 14, 2025, comes after similar motions were filed by other co-defendants, Alysee Hyatt, Wenter Donovan, and Malik Dyer. These individuals had previously argued that the case should be handled under Mexican law because the incident took place in Mexico. The motion to dismiss claims that since the wrongful death occurred outside the United States, it should be dealt with in Mexico, not in North Carolina, where the defendants reside.

“This case should be decided in North Carolina.”

Shanquella Robinson’s mother, Sallamondra Robinson, has fiercely responded to these motions. In February, Hyatt and Donovan filed their motions, claiming that because the incident happened in Mexico, the case should be pursued under Mexican jurisdiction. However, the plaintiff’s legal team has pushed back, arguing that the defendants’ motion is not enough to dismiss the case from North Carolina courts.

Robinson’s response to the motion highlights that this lawsuit is filed by an American plaintiff (Shanquella’s mother) against American defendants, many of whom reportedly fled to North Carolina after the incident. This, they argue, makes North Carolina the most appropriate jurisdiction for the lawsuit. According to the plaintiff, the defendants, who are all from North Carolina, allegedly tried to conceal critical information about Shanquella’s death after returning to the state.

The response emphasizes that the actions of the so-called “Cabo Six” in the aftermath of Shanquella’s death – including promoting the viral video of the violent attack and withholding information from investigators – should be addressed in North Carolina courts.

The defense’s attempt to have the case dismissed, the plaintiff argues, would only serve to evade justice.

Legal back-and-forth

In addition to the legal arguments presented by the defendants, the plaintiff raises concerns about the challenges of pursuing the case in Mexico. One of the main points made in the response is that the defendants failed to explain how a case would be properly handled in Mexico, where obtaining testimony from witnesses might be extremely difficult.

The plaintiffs argue that dismissing the case would deny them the chance to present their case fairly and could undermine the ability to hold the defendants accountable in a court of law.

If the claims are dismissed, some fear it would set a dangerous precedent that could send the message that U.S. citizens can evade justice by fleeing to a foreign country, and then use “jurisdictional loopholes” to avoid legal consequences.