The 2025 Aladdin Mediterranean Restaurant Salmonella Outbreak in San Diego: A Detailed Look at How a Popular Clairemont Restaurant Became the Center of a Major Foodborne-Illness Investigation
In late April and early May 2025, one of San Diego’s better-known neighborhood restaurants, Aladdin Mediterranean Café in Clairemont, became the focus of a significant salmonella outbreak investigation that quickly expanded from a handful of illnesses into one of the region’s most closely watched restaurant-linked food-poisoning events of the year. Public reporting shows that county health officials first tied illnesses to diners who ate at the restaurant on April 25 and April 26, 2025, and then broadened the exposure window as more reports came in, ultimately linking probable and confirmed illnesses to people who ate there between April 25 and May 1.
At the outset, the outbreak looked serious even before the total scope was known. NBC 7 reported on May 3, 2025 that San Diego County Public Health officials had identified 14 confirmed and probable cases associated with the outbreak, affecting people ages 18 to 79, with five hospitalizations already reported. That early reporting mattered because it showed classic outbreak escalation: a restaurant exposure cluster, multiple sick patrons, and hospitalizations severe enough to trigger a much deeper county response.
What makes restaurant outbreaks like this so important is that they often begin with what appears to be a routine pattern of gastrointestinal illness and only later reveal themselves as a defined outbreak when public-health investigators connect the dots. In the Aladdin investigation, San Diego County’s public-health apparatus appears to have done exactly that. The County’s public statement, as reflected in local reporting, said people who reported becoming ill had eaten food from Aladdin Mediterranean Café during the relevant late-April period, and the County’s Environmental Health and Quality Department worked alongside Public Health Services to investigate the cluster.
The case count then climbed sharply. By May 8, 2025, the County had recorded 37 probable and confirmed cases in people who had eaten at the restaurant between April 25 and May 1, and the age range of the affected had widened dramatically, from as young as 1 year old to as old as 90. Local coverage at that stage reported nine hospitalizations. That jump from 14 cases to 37 in less than a week is exactly the kind of development that signals a broad common-source exposure rather than isolated unrelated illnesses.
The outbreak kept growing. By May 15 and May 16, 2025, San Diego County health officials were reported to have recorded 98 probable and confirmed cases linked to Aladdin Mediterranean Café, again tied to dining during the April 25 to May 1 period. KPBS reported that the affected diners ranged from 1 to 90 years old and that at least nine had been hospitalized. In practical terms, that made the Aladdin event not just a small local incident, but a large restaurant-associated outbreak with wide community reach.
One of the most important features of the Aladdin outbreak is how it illustrates the difference between epidemiologic linkage and definitive source identification. The county and local media consistently reported that Aladdin Mediterranean Café was linked to the outbreak through patron illness histories and public-health investigation, but officials also said that no specific source of the outbreak had been determined. NBC 7 reported both early in the investigation and again after reopening that the source had not been identified, and Aladdin itself stated publicly that the health department had concluded its testing without being able to determine the source. That distinction matters. A restaurant can be the common denominator in a salmonella outbreak even when investigators cannot isolate the exact contaminated ingredient, menu item, employee source, or environmental vector.
That uncertainty did not stop immediate control measures. Aladdin voluntarily closed on May 1, 2025 to allow San Diego County to conduct testing, inspect the facility, and interview staff. This was a significant operational step, and one that public-health officials often rely upon in fast-moving restaurant outbreaks to reduce the risk of ongoing exposure while the investigation develops. Both early and later reporting confirm that the restaurant cooperated with county officials during this period.
The reopening of the restaurant became its own public story. NBC 7 reported that county health inspectors visited the restaurant on May 2 and found no violations during an environmental inspection, and also inspected it on April 29 following reports of illnesses, again finding no violations during that inspection. At the same time, NBC 7 also reported that during a routine inspection on April 29, inspectors had observed a “major” violation of food-safety protocols and a “minor” violation related to food holding temperatures. The restaurant was then allowed to reopen on May 12 after county officials determined there was no ongoing risk. That combination of facts captures a tension seen in many outbreak investigations: a facility may reopen because officials no longer see an active public-health threat, even though the historical cause of the outbreak remains unresolved.
The food-holding-temperature issue is particularly notable because temperature control is one of the foundational safeguards in restaurant food safety. Improper hot or cold holding does not prove it caused the outbreak, but it is precisely the type of lapse that can enable bacterial growth or increase contamination risk depending on the food involved. Later reporting also quoted attorney Ron Simon as saying the restaurant had prior violations for failing to properly maintain or regulate holding temperatures for food it served. That allegation is part of the civil-litigation narrative rather than a final public-health finding, but it added to public scrutiny surrounding the outbreak.
The outbreak also quickly moved from a public-health matter to a litigation matter. PR Newswire reported on May 6, 2025 that Ron Simon & Associates had filed what it described as the first salmonella lawsuit against Aladdin Mediterranean Café in San Diego. A follow-up release on May 7 reported a second lawsuit as the number of reported victims continued to grow. Local reporting likewise described multiple lawsuits being filed on behalf of patrons who said they became ill after eating at the restaurant. The legal significance of this is straightforward: when a restaurant is epidemiologically linked to a salmonella outbreak, civil claims often focus on negligence, failure to serve safe food, failure to maintain sanitary practices, and damages tied to hospitalization, dehydration, lost wages, and pain and suffering.
Individual allegations described in media reports help show how these cases develop. KPBS reported that one complaint filed on behalf of Charles McLaughlin and Paige Bensing alleged that they ate hummus, chicken shawarma, and beef shawarma wraps from the restaurant on April 26 and later sought treatment for salmonella symptoms at an urgent care facility. Because public-health officials had not identified a specific contaminated item, these lawsuit allegations did not establish the outbreak vehicle, but they showed how plaintiffs were trying to connect specific meals to later illness within the recognized outbreak window.
The owner’s public statements also became part of the story. SFGATE, summarizing local reporting, said owner Hamdi Abukhalaf apologized to those who became sick, asked the public not to rush to judgment, emphasized the restaurant’s 32-year history, and said the business had thrown away roughly $70,000 worth of food while cooperating with health officials. Those statements are important because they reflect a common real-world response by restaurants caught in outbreak investigations: acknowledging the seriousness of the illnesses, expressing sympathy, and trying to preserve public trust while the factual cause remains uncertain.
From a medical perspective, the outbreak was serious enough to warrant the public attention it received. According to the CDC, symptoms of salmonella infection commonly include diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps, usually beginning 12 to 72 hours after infection, and illness often lasts four to seven days. The CDC also warns that diarrhea may become severe enough to cause significant dehydration and that in some patients infection can spread beyond the intestines. Those baseline medical realities help explain why multiple Aladdin patrons reportedly required hospitalization and why county health officials advised anyone who ate there during the exposure window and developed symptoms to contact a healthcare provider.
The Aladdin outbreak is also a useful case study in how local public-health surveillance works. County officials were not waiting for a laboratory smoking gun in a particular food item before acting. Instead, they used illness reports, exposure histories, inspections, environmental-health review, and ongoing case-finding to define the outbreak and manage risk. That is often how foodborne outbreak control works in practice: first identify the cluster, then narrow the exposure window, then assess whether the restaurant can continue operating safely even if the exact contaminated ingredient is never conclusively found.
There is another lesson here as well: reopening does not necessarily mean exoneration, and inability to identify a source does not erase the outbreak. Public-health investigators concluded there was no ongoing risk sufficient to keep the restaurant closed, but that did not change the fact that nearly 100 people were reportedly identified as probable or confirmed outbreak cases linked to dining there. In foodborne-illness law and epidemiology, those are separate questions. One asks whether the immediate hazard continues. The other asks what likely caused the illnesses and who may bear responsibility for them.
In the end, the 2025 Aladdin Mediterranean Café salmonella outbreak became one of San Diego’s most consequential restaurant-associated illness events of the year because it combined every element that makes these incidents so consequential: a popular local restaurant, a rapidly growing outbreak curve, multiple hospitalizations, an unresolved contamination source, reopening amid continuing public concern, and swift civil litigation. By the middle of May 2025, the event had reportedly grown to 98 probable and confirmed illnesses among diners who ate there between April 25 and May 1. That number alone explains why the outbreak drew such sustained attention. It was not merely a restaurant having a bad week. It was a vivid reminder that a single food-service location can become the epicenter of a large-scale salmonella event with serious medical, regulatory, reputational, and legal consequences.
