If it helps, even the complaint does not assert liability on the basis of being “the landlord”.
The claim is brought on a whole bunch of other grounds - which may well be found to be entirely unsupported (that’s after all the whole point of trials) - but not on the basis “Disney is the landlord, therefore they are liable for their tenant’s actions or negligence”.
Disney is asserting that all the grounds in the claim don’t apply and that Disney’s only relationship with the restaurant is that of landlord and tenant.
As far as I can see all parties agree that if that is true, then Disney is not liable.
