IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION

Similar documents
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION. STATE OF ARKANSAS ex rel. DUSTIN McDANIEL, ATTORNEY GENERAL. v. Case No.

ADOPTED REGULATION OF THE NEVADA FUNERAL AND CEMETERY SERVICES BOARD. LCB File No. R086-18

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER JEFF ATWATER STATE OF FLORIDA EMERGENCY ORDER OF SUSPENSION

PROPOSED REGULATION OF THE NEVADA FUNERAL AND CEMETERY SERVICES BOARD. LCB File No. R September 17, 2015

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO: COMPLAINT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS CITY STATE OF MISSOURI

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA - CIVIL DIVISION - Plaintiff CASE NO.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION

Case 3:13-cv GPM-PMF Document 5 Filed 02/14/13 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Filing # E-Filed 05/08/ :47:12 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS COMPLAINT. Plaintiff Michael Landers, by and through his attorneys, for his

CHAPTER K DISCIPLINARY GUIDELINES AND PENALTIES

NO. THE STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO

69K DISCIPLINARY GUIDELINES AND PENALTIES

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS. v. Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Courthouse News Service

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS. v. Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Filing # E-Filed 12/22/ :53:20 PM

SUBCHAPTER 34C - CREMATORIES SECTION.0100 GENERAL PROVISIONS

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND. Plaintiffs Furlandare Singleton, individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of

CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

IC Chapter 31. Cremation

Case 2:13-cv KOB Document 1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY AT KANSAS CITY STATE OF MISSOURI

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION

LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Sixty-fourth Legislature First Regular Session 2017 IN THE SENATE SENATE BILL NO. BY BUSINESS AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA

Filing # E-Filed 07/13/ :52:45 AM

Case 5:16-cv DMG-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/16 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:1

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 02/24/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROW ARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

Case 9:18-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2018 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT INDEPENDENCE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR AUTAUGA COUNTY, ALABAMA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION

Case 5:18-cv TLB Document 1 Filed 11/14/18 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1

Title 5: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND SERVICES

COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION : : : : : : : : : :

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:11-cv BRW Document 1 Filed 10/03/11 Page 1 of 12 FILED

Case 1:08-cv JHR -KMW Document 37 Filed 05/04/09 Page 1 of 13 PageID: 222 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COMPLAINT NATURE OF THE ACTION PARTIES

Case 7:18-cv Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: COMPLAINT

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 12/07/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Defendants.

RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF: SOLARCITY CORPORATION,

Case 0:17-cv XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/13/2017 Page 1 of 12

Case 2:10-cv DF Document 1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:1

I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

ThSTS. hereby state and allege. bring this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI STATE OF MISSOURI

Case Number: CIV-MARTINEZ-GOODMAN DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANTS YOUR YELLOW PAGES. INC., CITY PAGES. INC..

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR SUMMARY ANALYSIS

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/17 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/ :40 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Filing # E-Filed 03/07/ :02:15 AM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION

COMPLAINT. Plaintiff, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, ( PLAINTIFF or the ATTORNEY GENERAL ),

WEST VIRGINIA CODE CHAPTER 30. PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS. ARTICLE 6. BOARD OF FUNERAL SERVICE EXAMINERS.

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 COMPLAINT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION COMPLAINT. COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Patrick Hardy, by and through his attorney, Joshua D.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT

Case 0:10-cv MJD-FLN Document 1 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Court File No.

Small Business Lending Industry Briefing

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION Civil Action No.: 3:17-CV-398.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE DIVISION

Case 1:13-cv JBS-JS Document 1 Filed 12/16/13 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

District of Columbia False Claims Act

Case 3:17-cv DMS-RBB Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 PageID.1 Page 1 of 20

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION

Corporate Administration Detection and Prevention of Fraud and Abuse CP3030

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO. Case No.

Case 1:17-cv FDS Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 4 Filed: 03/08/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:24

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA -CIVIL DIVISION-

Virginia Freedom of Information Act ( VFOIA ) Complaint Template

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. -v- Civil No. 3:12-cv-4176

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. Plaintiff, DRAFT. Defendants.

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/08/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1

2016CI21911 CAUSE NO. v. JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL PETITION. COMES NOW GRUPO INTEGRADORA SOLAR, SAPI DE CV (hereinafter, GIS ),

Case 5:16-cv Document 1 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. Plaintiff, DRAFT. Defendants. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

Transcription:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION STATE OF ARKANSAS, ex rel. LESLIE RUTLEDGE, ATTORNEY GENERAL PLAINTIFF v. CASE NO. ARKANSAS FUNERAL CARE, LLC d/b/a ARKANSAS FUNERAL CARE & CREMATORY, LEROY WOOD, ROD WOOD, and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-20 AS OWNERS AND/OR MANAGERS OF ARKANSAS FUNERAL CARE AND CREMATORY DEFENDANTS COMPLAINT The State of Arkansas, ex rel. Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General ( the State ), for its Complaint against Arkansas Funeral Care, LLC doing business as Arkansas Funeral Care & Crematory, LeRoy Wood, Rod Wood, and John/Jane Does 1-20 (referred to collectively as Defendants ), states: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is a consumer-protection action brought to redress and restrain violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark. Code Ann. 4-88- 101 115 ( ADTPA ). 2. Arkansas Funeral Care, LLC ( AFC ), and its owners and managers, LeRoy Wood, Rod Wood, and John/Jane Does 1 20, individually and through the operation of AFC, have deceived and harmed numerous Arkansas consumers. 1

3. Defendants were in the business of providing various funeral-care services. These services were to be executed in a timely, professional, and respectful manner. Defendants failed to provide the expected services in a timely manner, and, in some cases, did not perform the services at all. 4. The State seeks an order imposing civil penalties, restitution for affected consumers, attorneys fees, costs, and other relief against Defendants. II. PARTIES 5. Plaintiff is the State of Arkansas ex rel. Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General. Attorney General Rutledge is the chief legal officer of the State. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-104 and 4-88-113, the State may seek civil enforcement of the ADTPA. 6. Defendant AFC is an Arkansas company whose principal place of business was 2620 West Main Street, Jacksonville, Arkansas 72076. Its registered agent for service of process is LeRoy Wood at 2620 West Main Street, Jacksonville, Arkansas 72076. The corporate entity of AFC is currently in existence; however, AFC is no longer conducting business at this address. 7. Defendant LeRoy Wood is an owner, operator, and manager of AFC. He is a resident of Pulaski County, Arkansas and is the registered agent for AFC. His address for service of process is 2620 West Main Street, Jacksonville, Arkansas 72076. 2

8. Rod Wood is an individual residing in Pulaski County, Arkansas. He is an owner, operator, and manager of AFC. His business address is 2620 West Main Street, Jacksonville, Arkansas 72076. 9. The true names and capacities of fictitious defendants, John/Jane Does 1 20, are unknown to Plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, therefore, alleges that these individuals are responsible in some capacity for the acts alleged in this complaint. 10. LeRoy Wood, Rod Wood, and John/Jane Does 1-20 are each liable for the actions of AFC. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-113(d)(1): Every person who directly or indirectly controls another person who is in violation of or liable under this chapter and every partner, officer, or director of another person who is in violation of or liable under this chapter shall be jointly and severally liable for any penalties assessed and any monetary judgments awarded in any proceeding for civil enforcement of the provisions of this chapter, provided that the persons to be held jointly and severally liable knew or reasonably should have known of the existence of the facts by reason of which the violation or liability exists. III. JURISDICTION 11. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-104 and the common law of the State of Arkansas. 12. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to Arkansas Code Ann. 16-60-112 in that the violations alleged took place in Pulaski County, Arkansas. 13. Every person subject to liability under Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-113(d)(1) shall be deemed, as a matter of law, to have purposefully availed himself or herself 3

of the privileges of conducting activities within Arkansas sufficient to subject the person to the personal jurisdiction of the circuit court hearing an action brought pursuant to this chapter. 14. Venue is proper pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-104, 4-88-112, and the common law of the State of Arkansas. IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 15. AFC provided funeral-related goods and services to Arkansas consumers, including but not limited to, funeral counseling, recording vital statistics, securing permits, filing and obtaining death certificates and other forms and claims, preparation of necessary notices-of-death, coordination and sales of service plans, embalming, coordination and implementation of open-casket services, providing special care of autopsied remains, hairstyling and cosmetology services for decedents, and coordination of visitation and viewing, cremation, casket sales or rentals, outer-burial containers, and cremation urns. 16. On its website, AFC advertised its services and made claims regarding its facilities. Marketing statements on the website include: a. Our [burial] packages provide you with a selection of goods and services without any substitution or deletion. b. The care and removal of the deceased to our office from a local residence, health care facility or airport. c. Arkansas Funeral Care is also honored to be the exclusive funeral and cremation service provider for Veteran s Funeral Care for all of Central Arkansas. d. Our Veterans [sic] Burial and Cremation plans honor those who have given their lives to protect our nation. 4

e. [O]ur professional staff will arrange military honors for a dignified and honorable military service with affordable prices. Family, friends and a grateful nation will have an opportunity to give a final salute to our fallen heroes. 17. Arkansas consumers entered into written contracts for chosen funeral goods and services with AFC based on these representations on their website as well as other oral representations made during the sales process. The contracts detailed the costs of the funeral goods and services to be rendered at the time of need. 18. Arkansas consumers have filed complaints with the Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney General s Office regarding the following: a. Failure to provide cremation services; b. Nauseating odor of bodies that were left unrefrigerated without being embalmed; c. Failure to provide adequate staff to transport bodies; and d. Untimely receipt of death certificates. 19. Defendants, AFC and LeRoy Wood, held licenses from the Arkansas Embalmers and Funeral Directors Board ( the Board ). As licensees, these defendants are subject to certain Board regulations due to noncompliance with said regulations. 1 20. Some of the facts alleged in this complaint were discovered because of Board inspections and complaints submitted to the Board. Complaints to the Board include: 1 The Ark. Code Ann. 17-29-201, et seq. sets forth the State s regulatory framework governing embalmers, funeral directors, and funeral establishments. 5

a. Bodies not being refrigerated; b. Untimely embalmed and decomposing bodies; c. The smell of embalming fluid during services; d. Visible body fluids during viewing; and e. Receipt of cremated remains in a sealed cardboard box instead of an urn. 21. The Board Inspector conducted the scheduled inspection of Defendants facility on January 12, 2015 and returned to the location on January 13, 14, 15, and 16, 2015. 22. During these visits, the inspector found multiple and continuing violations of the Board s regulations: a. Blood and other bodily fluids on the floors and walls; b. Unlocked and unsecured doors; b. Improper storage of bodies, including: (1) Coolers filled beyond capacity; (2) Bodies stacked on top of each other; (3) Unembalmed bodies located outside of appropriate storage; (4) Bodies left on wooden pallets; (5) A decomposing body strapped to a cot; (6) Deteriorating flooring in crematory; and (7) Portions of flooring and human ashes stored in a barrel. 6

23. The Pulaski County Coroner and the Arkansas State Crime Lab removed thirty-one bodies from Defendants facility. 24. One consumer reported that he contracted with AFC to perform his mother s cremation. Nine days after the agreement was reached, the cremation had not been performed, and he had to find another location to assist with the remains. 25. Consumers have reported difficulties in timely receiving death certificates. AFC advised at least one consumer that the death certificate had been lost. 26. Due to delays in embalming that caused extreme levels of decomposition to the bodies, some consumers have reported the inability to hold open-casket services. In particular, one consumer was denied a request to view the body, being told by AFC that her loved one looks like a monster, and he is completely green, and if you view the body, you will have nightmares. Members of the family were told that his body had been left on a slab. 27. Consumers have reported bodily fluids seeping from their loved ones remains and saturating the inside of the casket during visitation. On one occasion, a consumer observed bodily fluids oozing from the deceased relative s ear during the open-casket viewing. 28. Consumers are afraid and distraught that they do not have the actual remains of their own loved ones due to the conditions at AFC. One consumer reported that when she arrived at AFC and asked to see her mother, the wrong body was presented to her. Only after insisting that the remains presented to her 7

were not her mother s, she learned AFC had not yet transported her mother s body from the hospital. 29. Consumers have raised additional concerns regarding AFC s failure to provide services. Consumers reported that AFC did not provide adequate staff for pick up and transportation of bodies. Consumers also reported that services were not of the quality promised, such as preparation of memorial booklets. 30. One consumer reported that the cremation of her husband, a veteran, was delayed over three weeks and was, therefore, not available for his memorial service. 31. All these conditions occurred at the AFC location at 2620 West Main Street, Jacksonville, Arkansas. Arkansas consumers have been financially and emotionally harmed by the unconscionable business practices of these defendants. V. VIOLATIONS OF LAW 32. The ADTPA sets forth the State s statutory framework governing deceptive and unconscionable trade practices. 33. The business practices of the Defendants related to funeral services and funeral merchandise constitute the sale of goods or services within the meaning of Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-102(4) and (7). The same business practices constitute business, commerce, or trade within the meaning of Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-107. 34. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-107(a)(10), it is unlawful for any person to engage in unconscionable, false, or deceptive act[s] or practice[s] in business, commerce, or trade. The Defendants have engaged in prohibited conduct 8

by marketing and selling funeral goods and services while accepting more business than the funeral home could appropriately handle, in that the Defendants coolers were filled beyond capacity. Bodies received were stacked on top of each other or on wooden pallets in non-temperature controlled areas while awaiting burial or cremation. Some decedents had obvious signs of decomposition. 35. Under Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-107(a)(1), it is a violation of the ADTPA to knowingly make a false representation as to the characteristics uses [or] benefits of goods and services. AFC has engaged in prohibited conduct by knowingly making representations on its website, promising the very best funeral care, impeccable service, and everything needed to celebrate the life of a loved one in a dignified and honorable way at affordable prices. In reality, AFC failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the embalming prep room, failed to provide death certificates as per the contract, and failed to properly handle and prepare bodies that were in its custody, care, and control. Further, in most instances, the Defendants did not have the capacity or any reasonable expectation that they would be able to fulfill their contractual and ethical obligations to the families. In both web marketing and oral representations, AFC represented a quality of services that it knew it could not provide. 36. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-108, the use of deception, fraud, false pretense, or otherwise concealing, suppressing, or omitting any material fact in connection with the sale or advertisement of any goods or services is unlawful. AFC omitted material information regarding critical problems with services from its 9

website as well as oral statements made by its representatives, thereby concealing the fact that it could not timely provide embalming services, crematory services, ashes of loved ones, and death certificates. AFC failed to tell consumers material information concerning time delays and staffing constraints when selling funeral services to consumers. It failed to tell consumers that, because of its method and staffing levels, there would be bodily fluids excreted during visitations. AFC failed to tell consumers that there could be decomposing and rotting flesh that would turn some body parts black. AFC failed to inform consumers that there could be overwhelming stench at the time of seeing a deceased loved one for the last time. AFC failed to tell consumers that family members would have to assist in lifting and carrying the remains of their loved ones as part of the transportation process. AFC failed to tell consumers that the remains of their loved ones would be left unattended for days or that there would be a complete lack of dignity in the handling of the funeral services. VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 37. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-113(a), the Attorney General may bring a civil action seeking to prevent persons from engaging in the use or employment of any prohibited practices. Under the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-104 and 4-88-113(a)(1), the Attorney General may seek an injunction prohibiting any person from engaging in any deceptive or unlawful practice. 38. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-113(a)(2), the Attorney General may seek to restore any purchaser who has suffered any ascertainable loss by reasons of the use or employment of the prohibited practices any moneys or real property 10

which may have been acquired by means of any practice declared to be unlawful by this chapter, together with other damages sustained. 39. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-113(a)(3), any person who violates the provisions of the ADTPA may be assessed a civil penalty of up to $10,000.00 per violation. 40. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-113(b), the Attorney General may petition the Court to order the suspension or forfeiture of franchises, corporate charters, or other licenses or permits or authorization to do business in this state. 41. Likewise, under the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-113(e), any person who violates the provisions of the ADTPA shall be liable to the Office of the Attorney General for all costs and fees, including, but not limited to, expert witness fees and attorneys fees incurred by the Office of the Attorney General in the prosecution of such actions. 42. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-113(d)(1), [e]very person who directly or indirectly controls another person who is in violation of or liable under the ADTPA and every partner, officer, or director of another person who is liable thereunder shall be jointly and severally liable for any penalties assessed and any monetary judgments awarded in any proceeding for civil enforcement of the provisions of the ADTPA, provided that the persons to be held jointly and severally liable knew or reasonably should have known of the existence of the facts by reason of which the violation or liability exists. 11

43. A person is an individual, organization, group, association, partnership, corporation, or any combination thereof. Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-102(5) 44. The Defendants are persons who have engaged in unconscionable, false, or deceptive acts or practices in business, commerce, or trade, as alleged herein. 45. The State demands a trial by jury. 46. The State reserves the right to amend its Complaint or plead further. WHEREFORE, the above premises considered, the State of Arkansas, ex rel. Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court: a. Issue an injunction, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-104 and 4-88- 113(a)(1), preventing Defendants from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices; b. Issue an order, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-113(a)(2), requiring Defendants to pay consumer restitution to those Arkansas consumers affected by the activities outlined herein. In addition to, or in the alternative, the Defendants should be ordered to disgorge all funds received by Defendants as a result of the use of prohibited practices. The Attorney General is aware that some consumers are pursuing private recovery of funds through individual court filings; however, it is not the intent of the Attorney General to provide a mechanism of double recovery for any consumers; 12

c. Impose civil penalties, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-113(a)(3), against Defendants in the amount of $10,000.00 per violation for each violation of the ADTPA proved at the trial of this matter; d. Issue an order, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-113(b), forfeiting the corporate charters, licenses, permits, and authorizations to do business in Arkansas which may currently be enjoyed by Defendants; e. Issue an order, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-113(e), requiring Defendants to pay the State s costs and fees in this litigation, including, but not limited to, attorneys fees; and f. Grant all other relief that may be just and appropriate. Respectfully submitted, LESLIE RUTLEDGE Attorney General By: /s/ Sarah Page Tacker Sarah Page Tacker Ark. Bar No. 2002-189 Deputy Attorney General Office of the Arkansas Attorney General s 323 Center Street, Suite 500 Little Rock, AR 72201 Sarah.Tacker@ArkansasAG.gov Facsimile: (501) 682-8118 Telephone: (501) 682-1321 13