Filing # 103258596 E-Filed 02/13/2020 12:00:51 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA

IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION

CASE NO.:

EBONY MORGAN, individually, and

REGINALD WASHINGTON, individually,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

RWS FUNERAL SERVICES, LLC., a

Florida Limited Liability Company dba
SHAWN JOHNSON FUNERAL &
CREMATION SERVICES, LLC.,
WARNECKE, RONALD, individually,
PHILLIPS, ALTERRAON, individually,
JOHNSON, SHANDEIRIO, A.K.A. SHAWN JOHNSON,
Individually, LEGER, ADRIENNE DISHONE LEGER, individually.

Defendants,
_______________________________________/ JURY DEMAND

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiffs, EBONY MORGAN, individually, and REGINALD WASHINTON,

individually, by and through the undersigned counsel brings this civil action against the
Defendants, RWS FUNERAL SERVICES, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company dba
SHAWN JOHNSON FUNERAL & CREMATION SERVICES, LLC, WARNECKE,
RONALD, individually, PHILLIPS, ALTERRAON, individually, JOHNSON, SHANDEIRIO,
individually (hereinafter “SHANDEIRIO JOHNSON”), and ADRIENNE DISHONE LEGER,
individually, and say as follows:

1. This is an action at law within the jurisdiction of this Court as a matter in

controversy which exceeds the sum of $15,000, exclusive of interest, attorney’s fees, if any, and
costs.
2. The Plaintiff, Ebony Morgan (hereinafter “MORGAN”) is an individual, sui juris,
and resident of Palm Beach County, Florida.
3. The Plaintiff, Reginald Washington (hereinafter “WASHINGTON”) is an
individual, sui juris, and resident of Palm Beach County, Florida.
4. The Defendant, RWS Funeral Services, LLC, dba Shawn Johnson Funeral &
Cremation Services, LLC (hereinafter “RWS”) is a Florida Limited Liability Company with its
principal place of business located at 94B E 30th Street, Riviera Beach, Florida 33404.
5. The Defendant, Ronald Warnecke, (hereinafter “WARNECKE”) is an individual,
sui juris, and resident of Palm Beach County, Florida.
6. The Defendant, Alterraon Phillips, (hereinafter “PHILLIPS”), is an individual, sui
juris, and resident of Palm Beach County, Florida.
7. The Defendant, Shandeirio Johnson, (hereinafter “JOHNSON”), is an individual,
sui juris, and resident of Palm Beach County, Florida.
8. The Defendant, Adrienne Dishone Leger, (hereinafter “LEGER”), is an
individual, sui juris, and resident of Broward County, Florida.
9. Venue is proper pursuant to Florida Statute 47.011, in Palm Beach County, where
the real property is located, and Defendant’s principle place of business exist.
10. Plaintiff has performed all conditions precedent to this right to seek recovery from
the Defendant, or such conditions have been waived or excused.
11. The Plaintiff has hired the undersigned attorney and agree to pay said attorney a
reasonable fee for his services.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

12. On or about January 22, 2020, R.W., a minor, the daughter of the Plaintiffs in this
matter, MORGAN and WASHINGTON, sadly passed away after suffering a fatal asthma attack
during a family trip to Savannah, Georgia.
13. On or about January 23, 2020, while grieving the loss of their child, MORGAN
and WASHINGTON engaged RWS to provide funeral services for minor child R.W.
14. On or about January 24, 2020, JOHNSON on behalf of RWS transported R.W.
across state lines from Georgia to Florida without embalming the body, without refrigerating the
body, and without securing the necessary permit.
 15. On January 28, 2020, MORGAN along with family members met with
JOHNSON in order to make funeral arrangements. JOHNSON assured the family that the body
would be embalmed and that all laws and regulations would be complied with.
16. After discussions, JOHNSON did not provide a general price list, but rather gave
the family a paper with different packages and verbally quoted prices for each package.
17. MORGAN was denied the right to see her child’s body on three separate
occasions, January 30, 2020, February 5, 2020, and February 6, 2020.
18. On or about February 4, 2020, MORGAN payed RWS Three Thousand Fifty-Five
Dollars ($3,055.00) via cashier’s check for partial payment of her daughter’s funeral
arrangements.
19. On February 6, 2020, MORGAN spoke to Carmen Mock with the State of
Florida Funeral, Cemetery and Consumer services.
20. Ms. Mock advised MORGAN of her rights to see her daughter. Ms. Mock told
MORGAN that an investigator would be calling her and JOHNSON.
21. On that same day MORGAN went to RWS principal place of business with a
police escort, considering having her daughter removed from the care of RWS; MORGAN again
demanded to see her child.
22. JOHNSON told police, MORGAN and WASHINGTON, that she would have her
colleague bring the body of R.W. from the morgue to the funeral home right away, and that it
would take about 30-45 minutes to deliver the body.
23. The police that escorted MORGAN to RWS left the scene shortly thereafter.
24. Within minutes of the police leaving, JOHNSON advised MORGAN and
WASHINGTON that her colleagues could not bring R.W., and that JOHNSON would have to
secure the body herself.
25. JOHNSON demanded to be paid the remaining cash balance and claimed that she
would return with the body by 12 P.M.
26. JOHNSON ultimately returned at approximately 3:30 P.M. in a Chevrolet
Suburban.
27. JOHNSON and another male, identified as her boyfriend, then pulled R.W. out of
the Chevrolet Suburban and rolled her into the office at RWS principal place of business.
28. While in the viewing room, MORGAN was only allowed to see the face and
hands of her daughter R.W.
29. From the limited amount of the body that MORGAN could see, the body was
significantly decomposed and had a stench odor. R.W. had skin slip on her hand, arm, and face.
30. R.W.’s fingernails had fallen off and the skin on her scalp was damaged to the
point where it was separating from the body with her hair attached.
31. MORGAN’s sister began to take photographs to document the condition of the
body and JOHNSON threatened to sue if the pictures were shown to anyone.
32. JOHNSON stated that she would airbrush R.W.’s body and that she would look
like “her normal self”.
33. Out of fear and not wanting to alarm JOHNSON of her concerns and issues with
the service, MORGAN met with JOHNSON in the conference room where she finally received a
contract from RWS.
34. The contract did not evidence the terms that had been previously discussed
between the parties. MORGAN asked JOHNSON to make the appropriate revisions to the
contract and she said no, that “she doesn’t need to do that because she knows what we agreed
to”.
35. MORGAN ultimately gave JOHNSON an additional One Thousand Dollars
($1,000.00) towards the outstanding balance.
36. On February 7, 2020, MORGAN called JOHNSON and told her that she was on
her way to RWS with the police and informing JOHNSON that she had signed a release for her
daughter R.W. to be picked up by Fuller Brothers Funeral Home and advised JOHNSON to not
touch R.W.’s body that had not been prepped for viewing.
37. JOHNSON eventually arrived at RWS speaking only to police and a friend
of the family, neither MORGAN nor WASHINGTON, claiming that R.W.’s body was at a
morgue named ABCO located at 820 NW 57th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309.
38. JOHNSON and her family quickly drove to ABCO in Fort Lauderdale, to learn that
ABCO had no record of R.W. being in the company’s care or possession.
39. More importantly, JOHNSON had actually called Fuller Brothers Funeral Home
and requested that someone come to pick up R.W.’s body for transport.
40. JOHNSON intentionally gave MORGAN, her family and the police false
information with the intent to deceive and have said parties rely on such statements.
 41. JOHNSON intentionally and without the consent of the Plaintiffs, applied a waxy
material to the face of R.W. and airbrushed her body in an attempt to conceal the decomposition
and negligence.

Count I
Breach of Contract-RWS

42. The allegations common to all counts and statement of facts above are hereby
incorporated herein by this reference. The Plaintiffs, Ebony Morgan and Reginald Washington,
further show as follows:
43. On or about January 28, 2020, RWS and MORGAN executed a contract (attached
as Exhibit “A”) for funeral goods and services with a total amount due of Seven Thousand
Dollars ($7,000.00).
44. Pursuant to the subject contract, RWS agreed to embalm the body and refrigerate
the body for ten (10) days.
45. R.W.’s body was never embalmed and was not refrigerated for ten (10) days by
RWS or any of its agents or representatives.
46. At all times material MORGAN acted reasonably under the circumstances and
satisfied all contractual obligations assigned to her.
47. As a direct consequence of RWS failure to satisfy the terms of the governing
contract, MORGAN has been damaged significantly.

Count II
Fraudulent Misrepresentation

48. Plaintiffs re-allege and adopt by reference herein, Paragraph 1-47 above, and
further alleges:
49. RWS, by and through its agent JOHNSON, made false statements to MORGAN
claiming that the body would be embalmed and that the body would be refrigerated for 10 days.
50. JOHNSON knew at the time that the body would not be embalmed and that the
body would not be refrigerated for ten (10) days.
51. JOHNSON knew that MORGAN did not know the true nature of the services that
RWS intended to provide.
 52. JOHNSON intended for MORGAN to be induced into action by relying upon the
contractual terms, disclosures, active concealment and omissions of disclosure, and statements
made by JOHNSON.
53. In executing the contract for Plaintiff reasonably and justifiably relied on the
statements of fact, active concealment, and willful omissions made by the Defendant.
54. As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiff’s reliance on the statements, active
concealment and willful omissions by Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered extensive damage.

Count III
Negligence
RWS, LEGER

55. Plaintiffs re-allege and adopt by reference herein, Paragraph 1-54 above, and
further alleges:
56. Defendants owed the Plaintiffs a duty to preserve, maintain and protect the body
of R.W. while in the care of RWS.
57. Defendants breached that duty of care by allowing the body of R.W. to
decompose.
58. The Defendants had a duty to take and use reasonable care to professional
standards in the care and preservation of R.W.’s body.
59. Failure to conform to this duty is negligence and led to an unreasonable and
foreseeable risk of the Plaintiffs enduring heightened levels of pain and suffering.
60. Defendants’ breach was the proximate cause of injury and damage to the
Plaintiffs.
61. Plaintiffs suffered legally cognizable damages by the Defendant’s breach in an
amount to be determined at trial.

Count IV
Negligence Per Se
RWS

62. Plaintiffs re-allege and adopt by reference herein, Paragraph 1-61 above, and
further alleges:
 63. Pursuant to Georgia Code § 31-10-20(a), “The funeral director or person acting as
such or other person who first assumes custody of a dead body or fetus shall obtain a disposition
permit for cremation or removal from the state.”
64. Defendant’s violated Georgia Code § 31-10-20(a) by failing to secure a final
disposition permit prior to removing the body from the State of Georgia.
65. Defendant’s failure to comply with the Georgia Code, and/or other industry
standards and regulations, constitutes negligence per se.
66. Defendant’s negligence per se has caused damage to Plaintiffs.

Count V
Negligence Per Se
RWS AND LEGER

67. Plaintiffs re-allege and adopt by reference herein, Paragraph 1-66 above, and
further alleges:
68. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 382.006(1), “The funeral director who first assumes
custody of a dead body or fetus must obtain a burial-transit permit before final disposition and
within 5 days after death. The funeral director shall provide the electronic burial-transit permit
generated from the electronic death registration system, or a manually produced permit, to the
person in charge of the place of final disposition.”
69. Defendants’ violated Florida Statute § 382.006(1), by failing to secure a final
disposition permit prior to final disposition and within 5 days after death.
70. Defendants’ failure to comply with the Florida Statutes, and/or other industry
standards and regulations, constitutes negligence per se.
71. Defendants’ negligence per se has caused damage to Plaintiffs.

Count VI
Negligence Per Se
RWS AND LEGER

72. Plaintiffs re-allege and adopt by reference herein, Paragraph 1-71 above, and
further alleges:
 73. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 497.386(2), “A dead human body may not be held
in any place or in transit over 24 hours after death or pending final disposition unless the body is
maintained under refrigeration at a temperature of 40 degrees Fahrenheit or below or is
embalmed or otherwise preserved in a manner approved by the licensing authority in accordance
with the provisions of this chapter.”
74. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 497.386(3), “A dead human body transported by
common carrier or any agency or individual authorized to carry dead human bodies must be
placed in a carrying container adequate to prevent the seepage of fluids and escape of offensive
odors. A dead human body may be transported only when accompanied by a properly completed
burial-transit permit issued in accordance with the provisions of chapter 382.”
75. Defendants’ violated Florida Statute § 497.386(2) by failing to maintain the body
under refrigeration at a temperature of 40 degrees Fahrenheit or below or embalming the body or
otherwise preserving the body in a manner approved by the licensing authority.
76. Defendants’ violated Florida Statute § 497.386(3) by failing to carry dead human
bodies must be placed in a carrying container adequate to prevent the seepage of fluids and
escape of offensive odors.
77. Defendants’ failure to comply with the Florida Statutes, and/or other industry
standards and regulations, constitutes negligence per se.
78. Defendants’ negligence per se has caused damage to Plaintiffs.

Count VII
Negligence Infliction of Emotional Distress
RWS

79. Plaintiffs re-alleges and adopts by reference herein, Paragraph 1-78 above, and
further alleges:
80. Defendant owed the Plaintiffs a duty to preserve, maintain and protect the body of
R.W. while in the care of RWS.
81. Defendant breached that duty of care by allowing the body of R.W. to decompose.
82. Defendant had a duty to take and use reasonable care to protect the families
Plaintiffs health, safety and well-being.
 83. Failure to conform to this duty is negligence and led to an unreasonable and
foreseeable risk of the Plaintiffs enduring health complications, heightened levels pain and
suffering and emotional distress after having viewed R.W.’s decomposed body.
84. Defendant’s breach was the proximate cause of injury and damage to the
Plaintiffs.
85. Plaintiffs suffered legally cognizable damages by the Defendant’s breach in an
amount to be determined at trial.

Count VIII
Violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
RWS

86. Plaintiffs re-alleges and adopts by reference herein, Paragraph 1-85 above, and
further alleges:
87. At all times material, the Plaintiff MORGAN was a “consumer” as defined in the
Florida Statutes, Title XXXIII Regulation of Trade, Commerce, Investments, and Solicitations,
Chapter 501 Consumer Protection Part II, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices (Act)
(hereinafter “the Act”) (§§ 501.201-501.213), § 501.203 (7), as “individual.”
88. At all times material, the MORGAN was an “interested parties or persons" as
defined in the Act, § 501.203 (6), as persons affected by a violation of the Act.
89. At all times material, RWS engaged in “trade or commerce” as defined in the Act,
§ 501.203 (8), by advertising, soliciting, providing, offering, or distributing, whether by sale,
rental, or otherwise, of any good or service, or any property, whether tangible or intangible, or
any other article, commodity, or thing of value, wherever situated, including the conduct of any
trade or commerce, however denominated. At all times material Arruda offered tangible real
property, residential real estate.
90. At all times material, RWS engaged in the aforesaid trade or commerce with a
“thing of value” as defined in the Act, § 501.203 (9) to include, without limitation, moneys,
certificate, benefit, credential, interest, or professional opportunity which includes to wit: the
$4,055 in funds received in exchange for the funeral services that were purportedly to be
provided.
 91. At all times material, RWS violated the Act § 501.204(1) and (2) by engaging in
unconscionable acts or practices, and/or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of
any trade or commerce.
92. At all times material, MORGAN was misled as a consumer and was aggrieved by
RWS violations of the Act.
93. At all times material, MORGAN acted reasonably under the circumstances.
94. At all times material, the aforementioned conduct, material misrepresentation,
active concealment, material omissions were unconscionable, unfair, deceptive, and likely to
cause injury to a reasonable relying consumer.
95. At all times material, the aforesaid conduct, material misrepresentations, active
concealment, material nondisclosures were likely to mislead consumers.
96. The Plaintiff, MORGAN has had to retain the undersigned attorney to represent
her in connection with this matter and is responsible to pay her attorney a reasonable attorney’s
fee for the services rendered in connection herewith.
97. Pursuant to Fla. Stat § 501.211 because the Plaintiff MORGAN has suffered
losses as a result of violations of this part, they are entitled to recover actual damages, plus
attorney’s fees and court costs as provide in Fla. Stat. § 501.2105 from RWS.
98. As a direct and proximate cause of RWS actions and omissions the Plaintiff
MORGAN has been injured.
Count IX
CONSPIRACY
RWS, LEGER, JOHNSON, PHILLIPS, WARNECKE
99 Plaintiffs re-alleges and adopts by reference herein, Paragraph 1-98 above, and
further alleges:
100 Defendants’, knowingly and collectively, made an actual and or apparent
agreement, to deceive the Plaintiffs of material facts as it related to the material terms of the and
expenses contract, delaying the embalming and or preservation process, misrepresentation of the
identity of the funeral director, failed to give Plaintiffs a General Price List and other facts
material to this claim.
101. Defendants’ overt act in commencing this Conspiracy involved charging the
Plaintiffs refrigeration fees for services not rendered; not timely embalming the R.W.’s body; not
having a licensed Funeral Director present during critical decisions making; intentionally failing
to obtain a permit to remove R.W’s body from Georgia to Florida; intentionally failing to
embalm R.W’s body before removal from Georgia to Florida; and intentionally omitting a
General Price List to the Plaintiff with the intention to deceive Plaintiffs as to the actual cost of
services.
102. Defendants’, collectively through their conspiracy, have caused Plaintiffs
economic and non-economic damages to be proven at trial.
COURT X
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
103. Plaintiffs re-alleges and adopts by reference herein, Paragraph 1-102 above, and
further alleges:
104. Defendants’ collective and individual actions constitute willful misconduct,
malice, fraud, oppression, moral turpitude, outrageous aggravation, reckless indifference for the
rights of others, wantonness and an entire want of care raising the presumption of conscience
indifference to the consequences.
105. Defendants’:
• misrepresented services rendered;
• recklessly mislead Plaintiffs to as it related to the identity of the Funeral Director;
• allowed R.W.’s body to decompose
• intentionally prevented Plaintiffs on multiple occasions to the R.W.’s remains
• intentionally mislead Plaintiffs as to the location of R.W.’s remains
• intentionally failed to provide Plaintiffs with a General Price List
• caused Plaintiffs to cancel viewing and funeral of R.W.
106. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages from defendants,
as determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury.
107. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a waiver on all Caps statutorily imposed on
Punitive Damages

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays that they have a trial on all issues and judgment against
Defendants’ as follows:
(a) That Plaintiffs recover the full value of past burial expenses and past and future lost
wages in an amount to be proven at trial;
(b) That Plaintiffs recover for mental and physical pain and suffering and emotional distress
in an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of the jury;
(c) That Plaintiff recover punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the enlightened
conscience of the jury;
(d) That Plaintiffs recover cost and interest;
(d) That Plaintiffs recover such other and further relief as is just and proper; and
(e) That all issues be tried before a jury.
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the I
HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished via E-filing of
US Mail to:

RWS
APLaw, LLC
11358 Okeechobee Blvd, Ste 2, Royal Palm Beach, Fl 33411

Adrienne Dishone Leger

504 NW 7th Ave, Pompano Beach Fl 33060

Ronald Warnecke
1100 Bear Island Dr. West Palm Beach, Fl 33409

Alterraon Phillips
17142 60th Lane North Loxahatchee, Fl 33470

Shandelrio Johnson
1011 Green Pine Blvd. West Palm Beach, Fl 33409

on this 13th day of February 2020.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ TAYSON C. GAINES, ESQ.

The Gaines Firm
Attorneys for Plaintiff
1914 37th St.
West Palm Beach, FL 33407
Telephone (786) 494-0188
Facsimile: (305) 357-4098
Email: admin@tgaineslaw.com
By: TAYSON C. GAINES
Florida Bar No. 1002329