Riviera Beach Funeral Denies Allegations of Mishandling Girl's Body

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
EBONY MORGAN, individually CASE NO.: 502020CA001715XXXXMB

and REGINALD WASHINGTON DIV: AF
individually
Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants,
v.
RWS FUNERAL SERVICES, LLC., a

Florida Limited Liability Company dba
SHAWN JOHNSON FUNERAL &
CREMATION SERVICES, LLC, et.al
Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs.
________________________________/
RWS FUNERAL SERVICES, LLC., a

Florida Limited Liability Company dba
SHAWN JOHNSON FUNERAL &
CREMATION SERVICES, LLC, et.al
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE IFILL LAW GROUP, LLC a

Georgia Limited Liability Company and
PIERRE L. IFILL
Defendants
________________________________/
ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTER CLAIM
COMES NOW the Defendants, RWS FUNERAL SERVICES, LLC dba SHAWN
JOHNSON FUNERAL & CREMATION SERVICES, RONALD WARNECKE,
ALTERRAON PHILLIPS, SHANDELRIO JOHNSON aka SHAWN JOHNSON and
ADRIENNE DISHONE LEGER, by and through the undersigned counsel and hereby files
their Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counter Claim; and in support there of states.
1
1. Statement requiring no response
2. Affirmed.
3. Without knowledge.
4. Denied as to “doing business as Shawn Johnson Funeral & Cremation Services
LLC”. Affirmed as to the remainder.
5. Affirmed.
6. Affirmed.
7. Affirmed.
8. Affirmed.
9. Affirmed.
10. Denied.
12. Affirmed.
13. Affirmed as to Morgan speaking with RWS. Denied as to all other.
14. Denied.
15. Affirmed as to the meeting with the family occurring on January 28 2020. Denied
as to all other allegations.
16. Denied.
17. Denied.
18. Affirmed.
2
22. Affirmed.
23. Affirmed.
24. Affirmed.
25. Affirmed in part, Mrs. Johnson did advise Ms. Morgan the balance needed to be
paid in certified funds as the viewing was set for the following day. Denied as to
all other allegations.
27. Affirmed in part, Ms. Re’Asia Washington was brought from the refrigeration
facility to the funeral home for the purpose of her mother to view her remains.
Denied as to all other claims.
28. Affirmed. RWS finds it inappropriate for anyone to fully view undressed remains
(even if they are the parent of the deceased and no one is allowed to touch the
remains of a decedent).
29. Affirmed as to the remains being in a stage of decomposition (as the family was
aware of the state Ms. Re’Asia Washington would be in due to the nature of her
passing). Denied as to all other claims.
30. Denied.
31. Denied.
32. Denied.
33. Denied, contract was issued and received by the family on the 28th of January, 2020.
Ms. Morgan and a friend removed the funeral establishment’s copy of the contract
from the funeral home on the 6th of February, 2020.
34. Affirmed in part, on February 6, 2020 Ms. Morgan discussed further with RWS
3
about adding a horse and carriage to the contract. An item to which she
previously stated she was not sure if she wanted or not.
35. Affirmed, after reviewing Ms. Re’Asia’s remains on February 6, 2020 (the day
before the “viewing” was to occur); Ms. Morgan paid an additional $1,000.00
towards the balance of her daughter’s service (which was due to be paid in full 48
hours prior to the viewing).
36. Affirmed in part, RWS was notified on February 7, 2020 that Ms. Morgan wanted
to come back by the funeral home and also notified she wanted to move her
daughter to Fuller Brothers Funeral Home.
37. Affirmed.
38. Denied.
39. Affirmed, it is customary that the receiving funeral home pick up remains.
40. Denied.
41. Denied.
COUNT I
42. Statement requiring no response.
43. Affirmed, the contract amount was $7,000.00 excluding the horse and carriage to
which Ms. Morgan made her final decision to have it added on February 6, 2020.
44. Affirmed.
45. Denied.
46. Denied.
47. Denied.
4
COUNT II
49. Denied, Ms. Washington was embalmed and refrigerated for more than 10 days.
50. Denied.
51. Denied.
52. Affirmed as to Ms. Morgan should rely on the contract terms. Denied as to all
other claims.
54. Denied.
COUNT III
56. Denied.
57. Denied.
58. Affirmed in part – Defendants had a duty to take and use reasonable care. Denied
as to all other allegations.
59. Denied.
60. Denied.
61. Denied.
COUNT IV
64. Denied.
65. Denied.
5
66. Denied.
COUNT V
69. Denied.
70. Denied.
71. Denied.
COUNT VI
75. Denied.
76. Denied.
77. Denied.
78. Denied.
COUNT VII
80. Denied.
81. Denied.
82. Denied.
83. Denied.
84. Denied.
85. Denied.
6
COUNT VII
89. Denied.
90. Denied.
91. Denied.
92. Denied.
93. Denied.
94. Denied.
95. Denied.
97. Denied.
98. Denied.
COUNT IX
100. Denied.
101. Denied.
102. Denied.
104. Denied.
105. Denied.
106. Denied.
7
107. Denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Ms. Re’Asia Washington was embalmed (prior to
being in the possession of the Shawn Johnson Funeral & Cremation) as evident by the
death certificate acquired by the family (and used for the cremation of her remains).
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Ms. Re’Asia Washington’s remains were
refrigerated while in the custody of the funeral establishment. Although the family has
made several public accusations that the funeral establishment was storing un-embalmed
and un-refrigerated remains in the funeral establishment; paragraphs 24 and 26 of their
complaint acknowledges a representative of the funeral establishment had to leave and pick
up Ms. Re’Asia Washington from refrigeration.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Embalming does not stop the decomposition of
remains but is a procedure used to slow the process. The family was fully aware Ms.
Re’Asia Washington had to be buried within a week due to the nature of her death. Ms.
Washington’s service should have occurred no later than February 1, 2020.
There are many factors that may influence the rate to which remains may
decompose and embalming can only attempt to slow the rate of decomposition.
Decomposition typically begins several minutes after death, with a process called autolysis,
or self-digestion. At the point cells become deprived of oxygen, their acidity increases as
the toxic by-products of chemical reactions begin to accumulate inside them, Enzymes start
to digest cell membranes and then leak out as the cells break down. Ms. Washington’s
body began this process early.
Ms. Re’Asia Washington’s actual cause of death is stated as; 1) profound anoxic
8
injury; 2) multi-organ dysfunction; 3) acute bronchospasm promoting; and 4) Hypoxic
Cardiac arrest. Profound Anoxic Brain Injury is when the brain is deprived of oxygen and
the brain cells start to die. Multi-organ dysfunction is self-explanatory and simply means
all of Ms. Washington’s internal organs failed. Acute Bronchospasm Promoting is a
sudden constriction of the muscles in the walls of the bronchioles (blockage of her
airways). Hypoxic Cardiac Arrest is caused by pure hypoxemia. Hypoxemia is low levels
of circulating oxygen in the blood. All of these items relate to lack of oxygen in the body
(cells) which is the start of decomposition.
Furthermore, a patient with a disease may have the tendency to decompose at a
faster rate than typical remains. Ms. Washington had Asthma. Asthma is a disease that
affects the airways of your lungs. In brief, the condition of Ms. Washington’s remains was
not due to lack of/or improper embalming or improper refrigeration; it was due to the nature
of her death, the medicines provided to her just prior to her death, her time on the ventilator
while on life support and the disease she had.
The ten (10) days for refrigeration (as included in the contract) was from the date
of taking Ms. Re’Asia into the custody and care of the funeral establishment. As stated
above, her service should have occurred within a week of her passing. As of February 6,
2020 (nearly two weeks after her passing) the family was informed their failure to pay the
outstanding balance was going to prevent the service (viewing) from proceeding the
following day.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Plaintiffs caused the main evidence in this case
to be cremated without any notice to the Defendants. Plaintiffs deprived defense counsel
and/or their expert(s) any opportunity to see or review Ms. Re’Asia Washington’s remains.
9
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: The Plaintiffs lack standing to bring a claim as
related to Counts III, IV, V and VI. Said counts relate to Negligence as a cause of action.
Based upon review of the counts as presented, the duty (if any) would be owed to the
decedent. The Plaintiffs, in their individual capacity, lack standing to bring these counts
on behalf of Ms. Re’Asia Washington.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: The Plaintiffs have failed to name an
indispensable party. Counts III, IV, V and VI are based upon a cause of action which relate
to the care and maintenance of the decedent, Ms. Re’Asia Washington, and alleged
incidents which occurred after her passing. The complaint fails to name a proper Plaintiff
to represent Ms. Re’Asia Washington’s interest.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Failure to state a cause of action for
negligence. The Plaintiffs have failed to state what duty was owed to them as parents of
the decedent, as related to Counts III, IV, V and VI.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Plaintiffs are estopped from bringing a breach
of contract claim as the funeral establishment performed all obligations to which it was
able and obligated to perform. The Plaintiffs failed to meet their obligation to the funeral
establishment which requires all financial obligations be met 48 hours prior to any viewing
and/or service occurring.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: The Plaintiffs are aware Ms. Re’Asia Washington
was embalmed. The Plaintiffs are aware the remains were embalmed at the time they
released Ms. Washington into the custody and care of the funeral establishment. The
Plaintiffs are aware that no one affiliated with any of the defendants is listed as the
embalmer for Ms. Washington. The Plaintiffs caused to have a death certificate prepared
10
and filed with the State of Georgia for the purpose of cremating Ms. Washington. As stated
in the Plaintiffs own allegations, it is the responsibility of the person or entity whom first
takes possession of the remains to perform certain task. None of the defendants in this
matter acquired, assisted in acquiring or had any dealing with preparing the death
certificate as provided to the State of Georgia by the Plaintiffs. A death certificate is a
form of affidavit to the state to which it is filed for the purpose of attesting to whom
provided what services to the decedent. The Plaintiffs knew their claims were false at the
time of making said accusations to the media and furthermore, at the time of filing this
complaint.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: The elements of Negligent Infliction of Emotion
Distress are 1) the Plaintiff must suffer a physical injury; 2) the plaintiff’s physical injury
must be caused by the psychological trauma; 3) the plaintiff must be involved in some way
in the event which caused the negligent injury to another; and 4) the person must have a
close personal relationship to the directly injured person. In this matter, the Plaintiffs
cannot meet the requirements of elements 1, 2 or 3. Based upon Ms. Morgan’s own
account, she had to force her way in to see her daughter. This is a situation in which Ms.
Morgan placed herself into with the full knowledge that Ms. Re’Asia Washington was not
prepared for viewing. Neither Plaintiff has suffered a physical injury or psychological
trauma as related to the alleged events.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Plaintiffs’ claims of conspiracy lacks any
supporting facts to make such a claim. 1) the remains were embalmed prior to date of the
funeral establishment’s receipt of possession as evident by the death certificate the family
caused to be filed with the State of GA; 2) the remains were refrigerated in the same manner
11
as all of the other remains in the funeral establishment’s possession at the time of the
alleged occurrence; 3) the general price list for services is in conference room and readily
available for anyone to obtain a copy (it is noted the package prices, which Plaintiffs have
alleged to have received, are less than the individual item general price list) and 4) a funeral
director was present during the critical decision making process.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Florida Statutes 768.72(1) states; “In any
civil action, no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted unless there is a reasonable
showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a
reasonable basis for recovery of such damages.” Including a claim for punitive damages
in an initial complaint is improper and inverse to Florida Statutes and Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure 1.190(f).
WHEREFORE, Defendants request all claims shall be denied as set forth in this
matter.
COUNTER CLAIM
Counter Plaintiffs, RWS Funeral Services LLC dba Shawn Johnson Funeral &
Cremation Services, Adrienne D. Leger and Shandelrio Johnson herby sues Counter
Defendant, Ebony Morgan, and Defendants Pierre L. Ifill and The Ifill Law Group, LLC,
a Georgia Limited Liability Company and alleges:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. This is an action for Defamation (Libel), Tortious Interference with Business
Relationships, and Fraudulent Inducement.
2. RWS Funeral Services, LLC dba Shawn Johnson Funeral and Cremation Services
(“RWS”) is a Florida Limited Liability Company doing business in Palm Beach
12
County.
3. Shandelrio Johnson (“Mrs. Johnson”) is an individual residing in Palm Beach
County, FL.
4. Adrienne D. Leger (“Mrs. Leger”) is an individual residing in Broward County, FL
whom does business in Palm Beach County and is a Florida Licensed Funeral
Director and Embalmer.
5. Ebony Morgan (“Ms. Morgan”) resides in Palm Beach County, FL.
6. Reginald Washington (“Mr. Washington”) resides in Palm Beach County, FL.
7. Pierre L. Ifill (“Mr. Ifill) made claims and accusations while in Palm Beach County
and conducted business through his law firm in Palm Beach County, FL.
8. The Ifill Law Group, LLC is a GA. Limited Liability Company (“Ifill Law”), which
to Mr. Ifill’s own assertion, was conducting business in Palm Beach County in
conjunction with another local firm.
9. Damages in this matter exceed $30,000.00.
10. This court has subject and personal jurisdiction over this matter.
GENERAL FACTS
11. Ms. Re’Asia Washington passed away on January 22, 2020.
12. Ms. Re’Asia Washington’s cause of death is stated as; 1) profound anoxic injury;
2) multi-organ dysfunction; 3) acute bronchospasm promoting; and 4) Hypoxic
Cardiac arrest. Profound Anoxic Brain Injury is when the brain is deprived of
oxygen and the brain cells start to die. Multi-organ dysfunction is self-explanatory
and simply means all of Ms. Washington’s internal organs failed. Acute
Bronchospasm Promoting is a sudden constriction of the muscles in the walls of
13
the bronchioles (blockage of her airways). Hypoxic Cardiac Arrest is caused by
pure hypoxemia. Hypoxemia is low levels of circulating oxygen in the blood. All
of these items relate to lack of oxygen in the body (cells) which is the start of
decomposition.
13. Ms. Re’Asia’s death certificate (as acquired by the family) states she was embalmed
in Georgia at some point soon after her passing.
14. RWS did not have an involvement in her embalming.
15. Ms. Morgan contacted RWS on the 23rd of January, 2020 in relation to transporting
and handling the funeral services for Ms. Re’Asia Washington in Palm Beach
County, FL.
16. Ms. Washington was transported to FL and immediately placed into refrigeration.
17. Ms. Morgan met with RWS on the 28th of January, 2020 and entered into the
contract as attached to the Plaintiffs’ initial complaint.
18. The initial contract amount was $7,000.00. At the time Ms. Morgan inquired about
the price for a horse and carriage but stated she was not sure if this was something
she wanted to add at the time.
19. Ms. Morgan did not make any payment until February 4, 2020 in the amount of
$3,055.00.
20. On Thursday, February 6, 2020, Ms. Morgan inquired as to the balance due for her
daughter’s service. Advised that she wanted the horse and carriage; but, wanted a
discount.
21. On the same date, Ms. Morgan saw her daughter and after viewing her daughter;
proceeded into the conference room to remit an additional $1,000.00 towards her
14
daughter’s service.
22. Ms. Morgan was advised by RWS if the balance was not paid, there would be no
viewing on February 7, 2020 or service on February 8, 2020.
23. On the morning of February 7, 2020, Ms. Morgan requested her daughter’s remains
be released to Fuller Brothers.
24. On February 7, 2020, Ms. Washington was released to Fuller Brothers.
25. On February 8, 2020, Ms. Washington had a memorial service as conducted by
Fuller Brothers.
COUNT I- FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT

RWS vs. Ms. Morgan
26. RWS restates paragraphs 1 through 25.
27. RWS previously performed funeral services for Mr. Ifill’s brother, Mr. Simon in
mid to late 2019.
28. During this time, Mr. Ifill and Mrs. Johnson (President and co-owner of RWS)
business relationship became contentious and RWS determined they would not do
any further business with him in the future.
29. Upon Ms. Morgan contacting RWS, Mrs. Johnson inquired whether Mr. Ifill would
have any involvement in preparation or paying for the services for Ms. Washington.
30. Ms. Morgan assured RWS that Mr. Ifill would not be involved that she had the
funds to pay for her daughter’s service.
31. Ms. Morgan made a false statement to RWS as she did not have the funds to pay
for Ms. Washington’s service(s).
32. Ms. Morgan knew at the time of making the statement she did not have the funds
necessary to pay for the services when she made the arrangements with RWS.
15
33. Furthermore, Ms. Morgan knew she would be requesting Mr. Ifill to assist her in
paying for Ms. Washington’s service(s).
34. Ms. Morgan made this false representation to induce RWS to enter into an
agreement with her as she desired a “party” for her daughter that Mrs. Johnson has
become known for coordinating (per Plaintiff’s own words).
35. Ms. Morgan knew due to her daughter’s condition/cause of death, her daughter
needed to be buried within approximately one week of passing.
36. Ms. Morgan knew the longer her daughter was not laid to rest, the more likely she
could not have an open casket service.
37. Ms. Morgan knows the reason her viewing was cancelled was due to her failure to
meet her obligation to the funeral home.
38. RWS has suffered severe damage due to Ms. Morgan’s inducement.
WHEREFORE, Counter Plaintiff RWS respectfully requests the Court to enter a
judgment in their favor against Ms. Morgan, by awarding damages, award cost of this
claim, award pre-judgment interest and any other relief this court deems appropriate.
COUNT II - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS

RWS vs. Ms. Morgan, Mr. Ifill and Ifill Law
40. The elements of tortious interference with a business relationship are: "(1) the
existence of a business relationship, not necessarily evidenced by an enforceable
contract, under which the plaintiff has legal rights; (2) the defendant's knowledge
of the relationship; (3) an intentional and unjustified interference with the
relationship by the defendant; and (4) damage to the plaintiff as a result of the
interference." See Salit v. Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., 742
16
So.2d 381, 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). "For the interference to be unjustified, the
interfering defendant must be a third party, a stranger to the business relationship."
Id. at 386; Ernie Haire Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 260 F.3d 1285, 1294 (11th
Cir. 2001). A defendant is not a "stranger" to a business relationship if the defendant
"has any beneficial or economic interest in, or control over, that relationship."
Nimbus Tech., Inc. v. SunnData Prods., Inc., 484 F.3d 1305, 1309 (11th Cir.2007)
(quoting Tom's Foods, Inc. v. Carn, 896 So.2d 443, 454 (Ala.2004)). Palm Beach
Health Care v. Prof. Med. Educ., 13 So.3d 1090, 1094 (Fla. App. 4DCA, 2009).
41. On February 7, 2020, Ms. Morgan chose to make a “live” social media video
posting.
42. In the posting Ms. Morgan told all customers of RWS whom had family member
remains in the custody of the funeral establishment to come and pick up their loved
ones.
43. Mr. Ifill and his Georgia law firm Ifill Law advised the public through his social
media post that he would working with a local law firm and would be pursuing this
matter.
44. Ms. Morgan, Mr. Ifill and Ifill Law went on to contact present and past clients of
RWS advising them not to pick up their death certificate(s); not to pick up their
love one’s remains (that they were receiving pet ashes); to file a complaint with the
State of Florida; to join them in an alleged “class action law suit” and if they had
loved ones in the care of RWS the families needed to remove them.
45. There was an existing/current business relationship with approximately 4 – 5
families at the time Ms. Morgan, Mr. Ifill and Ifill Law started posting and
17
contacting clients of RWS.
46. Ms. Morgan, Mr. Ifill and Ifill Law’s direct interference with these clients caused
all of them to request their loved ones be moved to other funeral establishments.
47. Ms. Morgan, Mr. Ifill and Ifill Law’s actions were a direct cause of damages due
to their tortious interference with RWS existing clients.
judgment in their favor against Ms. Morgan, Mr. Ifill and Ifill Law, by awarding damages,
award cost of this claim, award pre-judgment interest and any other relief this court deems
appropriate.
COUNT III – DEFAMATION - LIBEL

RWS vs. Ms. Morgan
49. On or about February 7, 2020 Ms. Morgan recorded and published a “live” video
on social media.
50. Ms. Morgan published the following false statements as related RWS;
a. RWS does not refrigerate the remains in its care;
b. RWS does not have a refrigeration system;
c. RWS has a pet cremation license;
d. Ms. Washington was not refrigerated since January 23, 2020;
e. RWS was operating without a license since September 2019;
f. RWS build/re-builds faces out of wax;
g. RWS stuff remains with rags;
h. The State of Florida told her that her daughter was never refrigerated;
i. A person could “see through” her daughter;
18
j. Her daughter’s foot fell off; and etc.
51. These statements were published online by Ms. Morgan and viewed more than
160,000 time.
52. These false statements were published with malice.
53. In Ms. Morgan’s February 7, 2020 video and her February 13, 2020 press
conference, she failed to mention she saw her daughter on February 6, 2020 and
thereafter went into the conference room to remit an additional $1,000.00 towards
her daughter’s funeral service.
54. Ms. Morgan was well aware the condition of her daughter’s remains was due to her
condition and circumstances associated with her passing along with the untimely
burial.
55. The false statements as made by Ms. Morgan has damaged RWS by subjecting
RWS to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, and disgrace.
56. RWS have been damaged by these false statements because the statements injured
RWS’s business.
57. RWS has been damaged by these false statements because the statements attribute
conduct, characteristics, and conditions incompatible with the proper exercise of
RWS’s lawful business.
judgment in their favor against Ms. Morgan, by awarding compensatory damages including
consequential and incidental damages, award attorney’s fees, award cost of this claim,
award pre-judgment interest, order Ms. Morgan to make a public retraction of all false
statements through all media sources to which she used to publish the statements and any
19
other relief this court deems appropriate.
COUNT IV – DAFAMATION - LIBEL

Mrs. Johnson vs. Ms. Morgan
58. Mrs. Johnson restates paragraphs 1 through 25.
on social media.
60. Ms. Morgan published the following false statements as related Mrs. Johnson;
a. Mrs. Johnson does not have a morgue that she uses;
b. Mrs. Johnson moved up from Miami to rob the people of Riviera;
c. Mrs. Johnson was operating without a license since September 2019;
d. Mrs. Johnson build/re-builds faces out of wax;
e. Mrs. Johnson stuffs remains with rags; and
f. Mrs. Johnson runs a criminal ring.
160,000 time.
conference, she failed mention she saw her daughter on February 6, 2020 and
burial.
65. The false statements as made by Ms. Morgan has damaged Mrs. Johnson by
20
subjecting her to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, and disgrace.
66. Mrs. Johnson has been damaged by these false statements because the statements
injured her business.
attribute conduct, characteristics, and conditions incompatible with the proper
exercise of her lawful business.
68. Mrs. Johnson has been damaged by these false statements as it has caused her and
her family to receive death threats and threats of injury.
69. Mrs. Johnson has been damaged by these false statements as it has caused her to be
shot at in broad daylight on a public street.
WHEREFORE, Counter Plaintiff Mrs. Johnson respectfully requests the Court to
enter a judgment in her favor against Ms. Morgan, by awarding compensatory damages
including consequential and incidental damages, award attorney’s fees, award cost of this
claim, award pre-judgment interest, order Ms. Morgan to make a public retraction of all
false statements through all media sources to which she used to publish the statements and
any other relief this court deems appropriate.
COUNT V – DEFAMATION - SLANDER

RWS vs. Ms. Morgan
71. On or about February 7, 2020 and thereafter, Ms. Morgan made statements to the
public as related to RWS.
72. Ms. Morgan made the following false statements as related RWS;
a. RWS does not refrigerate the remains in its care;
b. RWS does not have a refrigeration system;
21
c. RWS improperly refrigerate the remains in its care;
d. RWS improperly embalms remains in its care;
e. RWS has a pet cremation license;
f. Ms. Washington was not refrigerated since January 23, 2020;
g. RWS was operating without a license since September 2019;
h. RWS build/re-builds faces out of wax;
i. RWS stuff remains with rags;
j. The State of Florida told her that her daughter was never refrigerated;
k. A person could “see through” her daughter;
l. Her daughter’s foot fell off; and etc.
73. These false statements were spoken with malice.
burial.
76. The false statements as made by Ms. Morgan has damaged RWS by subjecting
RWS to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, and disgrace.
77. RWS has been damaged by these false statements because the statements injured
RWS’s business.
78. RWS has been damaged by these false statements because the statements attribute
22
conduct, characteristics, and conditions incompatible with the proper exercise of
RWS’s lawful business.
judgment in their favor against Ms. Morgan, by awarding compensatory damages including
consequential and incidental damages, award attorney’s fees, award cost of this claim,
award pre-judgment interest, order Ms. Morgan to make a public retraction of all false
statements through all media sources to which she used to make the statements and any
other relief this court deems appropriate.
COUNT VI – DAFAMATION - SLANDER

Mrs. Johnson vs. Ms. Morgan
79. Mrs. Johnson restates paragraphs 1 through 25.
80. On or about February 7, 2020, and thereafter, Ms. Morgan made verbal false
statements to the public as related to Mrs. Johnson.
81. Ms. Morgan made the following false statements as related Mrs. Johnson;
a. Mrs. Johnson does not have a morgue that she uses;
b. Mrs. Johnson moved up from Miami to rob the people of Riviera;
c. Mrs. Johnson was operating without a license since September 2019;
d. Mrs. Johnson build/re-builds faces out of wax;
e. Mrs. Johnson stuffs remains with rags; and
f. Mrs. Johnson runs a criminal ring.
82. These false statements were made with malice.
23
burial.
85. The false statements as made by Ms. Morgan has damaged Mrs. Johnson by
injured her business.
attribute conduct, characteristics, and conditions incompatible with the proper
exercise of her lawful business.
88. Mrs. Johnson has been damaged by these false statements as it has caused her and
her family to receive death threats and threats of injury.
89. Mrs. Johnson has been damaged by these false statements as it has caused her to be
shot at in broad daylight on a public street.
WHEREFORE, Counter Plaintiff Mrs. Johnson respectfully requests the Court to
enter a judgment in her favor against Ms. Morgan, by awarding compensatory damages
false statements through all media sources to which she used to make the statements and
COUNT VII – DAFAMATION - LIBEL

Mrs. Leger vs. Ms. Morgan
90. Mrs. Leger restates paragraphs 1 through 24.
24
on social media.
92. Ms. Morgan published the following false statements as related Mrs. Leger;
a. Mrs. Leger is licensed to run a pet crematory;
b. Mrs. Leger is not licensed to handle human remains; and
c. Mrs. Leger improperly embalm remains.
160,000 time.
burial.
97. The false statements as made by Ms. Morgan has damaged Mrs. Leger by
98. Mrs. Leger has been damaged by these false statements because the statements
injured her source of income.
99. Mrs. Leger has been damaged by these false statements because the statements
attribute conduct, characteristics, and conditions incompatible with her professional
license.
25
100. Mrs. Leger has been damaged by these false statements as it has caused her
public ridicule.
WHEREFORE, Counter Plaintiff Mrs. Leger respectfully requests the Court to enter
a judgment in her favor against Ms. Morgan, by awarding compensatory damages
false statements through all media sources to which she used to publish the statements and
COUNT VIII – DEFAMATION - SLANDER

Mrs. Leger vs. Ms. Morgan
101. Mrs. Leger restates paragraphs 1 through 24.
102. On or about February 7, 2020 and thereafter, Ms. Morgan made statements
to the public as related to Mrs. Leger.
103. Ms. Morgan made the following false statements as related Mrs. Leger;
a. Mrs. Leger is only licensed to cremate pets;
b. Mrs. Leger is not licensed to handle human remains; and
c. Mrs. Leger improperly embalm remains.
104. These false statements were spoken with malice.
106. Ms. Morgan was well aware the condition of her daughter’s remains was
due to her condition and circumstances associated with her passing along with the
26
untimely burial.
107. The false statements as made by Ms. Morgan has damaged Mrs. Leger by
subjecting RWS to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, and disgrace.
108. Mrs. Leger has been damaged by these false statements because the
statements injured Mrs. Leger’s source of income.
109. Mrs. Leger has been damaged by these false statements because the
statements attribute conduct, characteristics, and conditions incompatible with her
professional license.
WHEREFORE, Counter Plaintiff Mrs. Leger respectfully requests the Court to enter
a judgment in their favor against Ms. Morgan, by awarding compensatory damages
false statements through all media sources to which she used to make the statements and
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished
via E-Service Portal to: Tayson C. Gaines, Esq. (admin@tgaineslaw.com) this 25th day of
March 2020.
APLaw, LLC
11358 Okeechobee Blvd, Suite 2
Royal Palm Beach, FL 33411
(561) 729-0123
(561) 729-0128 (FAX)
al@ap-law.net
Constructionlaw@yahoo.com
BY:_______________________
ALTERRAON PHILLIPS, ESQ
Fla. Bar No.: 0063321
27

Riviera Beach Funeral Denies Allegations of Mishandling Girl's Body

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Riviera Beach Funeral Denies Allegations of Mishandling Girl's Body

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR

EBONY MORGAN, individually CASE NO.: 502020CA001715XXXXMB

RWS FUNERAL SERVICES, LLC., a

RWS FUNERAL SERVICES, LLC., a

THE IFILL LAW GROUP, LLC a

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTER CLAIM

JOHNSON FUNERAL & CREMATION SERVICES, RONALD WARNECKE,

ALTERRAON PHILLIPS, SHANDELRIO JOHNSON aka SHAWN JOHNSON and

4. Denied as to “doing business as Shawn Johnson Funeral & Cremation Services

LLC”. Affirmed as to the remainder.

11. Without knowledge.

13. Affirmed as to Morgan speaking with RWS. Denied as to all other.

as to all other allegations.

19. Without knowledge.

20. Without knowledge.

21. Without knowledge.

all other allegations.

26. Without knowledge.

Denied as to all other claims.

passing). Denied as to all other claims.

from the funeral home on the 6th of February, 2020.

previously stated she was not sure if she wanted or not.

hours prior to the viewing).

daughter to Fuller Brothers Funeral Home.

42. Statement requiring no response.

48. Statement requiring no response.

53. Without knowledge.

55. Statement requiring no response.

as to all other allegations.

62. Statement requiring no response.

63. Statement requiring no response.

67. Statement requiring no response.

68. Statement requiring no response.

72. Statement requiring no response.

73. Statement requiring no response.

74. Statement requiring no response.

79. Statement requiring no response.

86. Statement requiring no response.

87. Without knowledge.

88. Without knowledge.

96. Without knowledge.

99. Statement requiring no response.

103. Statement requiring no response.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Ms. Re’Asia Washington was embalmed (prior to

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Ms. Re’Asia Washington’s remains were

and un-refrigerated remains in the funeral establishment; paragraphs 24 and 26 of their

up Ms. Re’Asia Washington from refrigeration.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Embalming does not stop the decomposition of

Washington’s service should have occurred no later than February 1, 2020.

body began this process early.

all of Ms. Washington’s internal organs failed. Acute Bronchospasm Promoting is a

(cells) which is the start of decomposition.

Furthermore, a patient with a disease may have the tendency to decompose at a

while on life support and the disease she had.

on behalf of Ms. Re’Asia Washington.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: The Plaintiffs have failed to name an

to represent Ms. Re’Asia Washington’s interest.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Failure to state a cause of action for

the decedent, as related to Counts III, IV, V and VI.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Plaintiffs are estopped from bringing a breach

and/or service occurring.

certificate as provided to the State of Georgia by the Plaintiffs. A death certificate is a