2 < = < ~ 8 3 N g a gS 3 x x i 4 oO > z Zz 2 2 oO wi = & 3S oO ws Q Z i 5 S S 2 a Ww = z N 9 a 3 3 8 8 ie Aw Ss OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE TAWUANA PERKINS, and TONY THOMAS, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v CITY OF DETROIT, a municipal corporation, NEW CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH, a Michigan non-profit corporation, NECABA MANAGEMENT » INC., a Michigan corporation, ENDURING MEMORIES CEMETERY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, . a Michigan corporation, jointly and severally, GROU IN Defendants, Case No. 2021 - -CZ Hon, ROSSMAN, P.C. Mark C. Rossman (P63034) Elyse E. Palombit (P82066) Linda Roelans (P82818) 2145 Crooks Road, Suite 220 Troy, Michigan 48084 Telephone: 248.385.5481 Facsimile: 248.480.4936 mark@rossmanpe.com elyse@rossmanpe.com linda@rossmanpe.com Attorneys for Plaivuiffs SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC Joseph G. Sauder (82467) 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (888)-711-9975 sstriallawyers.com Pro Hac Admission to be RequestedBOCHETTO & LENTZ, P.C. Bryan R. Lentz (71383) 1524 Locus Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 735-3900 blentz@bochettoandlentz.com Pro Hac Admission to be Requested VERIFICATION OF NO PRIOR ACTIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, information and belief, there is no other pending or resolved civil action between the parties heteto and arising out of the transactions or occurrences alleged in the Complaint. Mark C. Rossman ‘Mark C, Rossman (P63034) Plaintiffs Tawauna Perkins and Tony Thomas (collectively, the “PlaintiffS"), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, by and through their attomeys, state as follows for their Class Action Complaint against Defendants City of Detroit, New Calvary Baptist Church, Necaba Management Group, Inc. and Enduring Memories Cemetery Management Company, Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants”. INTRODUCTION 1. This class action arises out of the gross misconduct and unlawful practices perpetrated by Defendants in connection with the rights of internment, and the provision of burial services and maintenance of plots located within Gethsemane Cemetery in Detroit, Michigan 2. Through this Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs seek reliefas the families who have been victimized by Defendants’ actions and their gross disregard for the final resting place of Plaintiffs’ loved ones. More specifically, Defendants, on information and belief: a, Buried family members in burial plots different than those that were purchased by the decedents’ families, depriving families and individuals of the ability to be interred in the particular plots they had purchased; 2b. Willfully misrepresented where bodies of family members had been buried; ¢. Moved gravestones and grave markers, and/or the deceased family member to burial plots different than the original resting place, without consent and without obtaining required permits; and d. Double sold burial plots at Gethsemane Cemetery, or otherwise caused multiple deceased individuals to be buried in a single plot, while representing to those that have purchased the plot that only a single individual would be placed in each plot. 3. Despite encountering problems with the operation and management of Gethsemane Cemetery, and being on notice of same, Defendants failed to take the actions and precautions necessary to prevent the gross misconduct and fraudulent actions that are the subject of this Class Action Complaint. PARTIES A. PLAINTIFFS 4, Plaintiff, Tawauna Perkins (“Perkins”) is a resident of Wayne County, Michigan. 5. Perkins’ brother, Owen Gray, died in December 2018. Following Mr. Gray's passing, Plaintiff Perkins and her family made arrangements for burial services, and purchased a plot located at Gethsemane Cemetery. 6. While visiting Gethsemane Cemetery, Perkins discovered that her brother’s headstone was cracked, as if it had been moved or otherwise broken. 7. In fact, Perkins discovered that many of the plots located at Gethsemane were seemingly destroyed. On one occasion when Perkins visited Gethsemane Cemetery, she discovered a number of headstones that appeared to have been dug up, laying in disarray behind a building located on the property. 8. Plaintiff Tony Thomas (“Thomas”) is a resident of Wayne County, Michigan.9. Thomas’ mother, Mary Ann Thomas died in 2011, Following Mary Ann’s death, the family purchased a plot at Gethsemane Cemetery 10. Onat least three different occasions when visiting Gethsemane Cemetery, Thomas noticed that his mother’s headstone was moved to a different locati Nn. i Thomas’ family was not notified that his mother’s remains were being relocated, resulting in Thomas and his family being unable to locate his mother when they would visit Gethsemane Cemetery. 12. Onseveral occasions, Thomas noticed that there were boulders and dirt ~as if there had recently been digging in or around the plot where his mother was located, He would then find that his mother’s remains had been moved. 13, Specifically, Thomas was told that his mother was buried in section “C” of Gethsemane Cemetery. However, the headstone for her burial space was later found in “CG” Moreover, it appears that the labels of sections within the Cemetery had changed. 14. Moreover, Thomas noticed that his mother’s headstone had cracks along the edges, as if it had been moved or otherwise damaged or tampered with 15, Neither Plaintiffs were ever notified by anyone on behalf of Gethsemane Cemetery or the Defendants that the grave markers and/or remains of either Plaintiffs’ decedent were being moved or relocated. On information and belief, Defendants had not obtained a disinterment or reinterment permit or order, as would be required in order to move a body, pursuant to MCL 333.2853,B, DEFENDANTS 16, Defendant City of Detroit (“the City”) is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Michigan. The City owns Gethsemane Cemetery, which is located in the City of Detroit, in Wayne County, Michigan, The City of Detroit Recreation Department (Recreation Department”) is a department the City, which oversees maintenance of the Cemetery, 17, Defendant New Calvary Baptist Church (“New Calvary”) is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Michigan, and which has a registered address located in the City of Detroit, County of Wayne, Michigan, as reflected by the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs records 18, Defendant Necaba Management Group, Inc, (“Necaba”) is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Michigan, and which has a registered address located in Oakland County, Michigan, as reflected by the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs records. 19. Defendant Enduring Memories Cemetery Management Company, Inc. (“Enduring Memories”) is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Michigan, and which has a registered address located in the City of Detroit, County of Wayne, Michigan, as reflected by the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs records 20. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs aver that each of the Defendants acted as an agent and alter ego of the other with a unity of purpose designed to increase profits and limit costs incurred, at the expense of Plaintiffs through the promotion of their outrageous conduct such that each Defendant is jointly and severally liable for the acts of the others based upon the long- standing unlawful practices described hereinJURISDICTION AND VENUE 21. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this case pursuant to MCL 600.605 because the amount in controversy is greatly in excess of $25,000. 22. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to MCL 600.701 and 600.711, because Defendants continually and systematically transact business, and maintain their principal place of business within, Wayne County, Michigan. 23. Venue is proper in this Court because the events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein, and the original injury and damages claimed herein, occurred within Wayne County, Plaintiff resides in Wayne County, and the Defendants reside or conduct business in Wayne County, CTS 24, Since November 1992, the City of Detroit’s Recreation Department has had a concession agreement (“Concession Agreement”) with New Cavalry Baptist Church. 25. The Concession Agreement allowed the New Cavalry Baptist Church to manage the Gethsemane Cemetery. 26. As revealed by an audit of the Recreation Department, conducted by the Office of the Auditor General, the New Cavalry Baptist Church, in turn, subcontracted the management of Gethsemane to Necaba Management Group, Ine. 27. The terms of the Concession Agreement require that written approval from the City be obtained prior to any services under the Concession Agreement being subcontracted to third parties. 28. Despite this, New Calvary subcontracted Necaba for the management services of Gethsemane Cemetery - without the written approval of the Recreation Department.29. Moreover, the Concession Agreement, by its terms, expired June 30, 2012, unless the City exercised its option to extend the Conce ion Agreement. 30. The City’s charter provides that the City’s prior approval of any contract shall not be deemed an approval of any extension or renewal, and that separate approval from the City Counsel must be obtained in order to effectuate such extension or renewal. 31. On information and belief, the City did not approve any extension or renewal of the Concession Agreement, 32. Following an audit by the City in 2014, the City and the Recreation Department were aware that the arrangement for the management of Gethsemane Cemetery had not gone through the proper channels for approval, and that they had failed to conduct proper due diligence of the management company to ensure it was capable of providing the services contracted for 33. Despite this, on information and belief, the City and the Recreation Department allowed for Necaba to continue providing management services for Gethsemane Cemetery, up until the relationship abruptly terminated in 2020. 34. Following the termination of Necaba’s services, on information and belief, Enduring Memories began providing management services for the Gethsemane Cemetery. Family members of the decedents who had been buried at Gethsemane Cemetery were not provided any notice or reason for the change in management. 35. Defendants were fully aware that the Gethsemane Cemetery was not being properly maintained. Defendants were fully aware that their conduct was unlawful and was harming the families of those laid to rest at Gethsemane Cemetery, yet the Defendants continued to disregard their duty of care and allowed the issues with the management of Gethsemane Cemetery to continue and cultivate over years without taking action to remedy it36. Defendants were motivated to conceal their knowledge of the unlawful practices complained of herein as Defendants were aware that acknowledging and remedying the management issues that persisted at Gethsemane Cemetery for years would be costly to Defendants. Lue Despite Defendants’ knowledge of multiple serious problems with their burial practices and record keeping, the Defendants intentionally omitted any disclosures to their potential or existing customers regarding these substantial problems, and also failed to implement any policy that would correct these problems and/or prevent similar problems from occurring in the future, 38. Upon information and belief, Defendants made, and continue to make, a conscious business decision not to conduct cemetery-wide investigations at cemeteries—where issues have occurred in the past—to determine the true state of their burial records and existing burials. 39. Upon information and belief, Defendants made, and continue to make, a conscious business decision not to inform the families and purchasers of grave sites that the grave markers andor bodies of their deceased family members have been moved. 40. Asset forth above, upon information and belief, the issues described herein resulted from the purchasing and burial policies and disregard of record keeping and management responsibility at Gethsemane Cemetery, 41. In April 2021, the Detroit News highlighted gruesome discoveries made by the family of a man who had been buried at Gethsemane Cemetery in 2016. 42. The article entitled “Detroit Family Wants Answers After 4 Bodies Found in Man's. Gravesite” highlighted the extreme outrageous conduct of Defendants and their willful disregard of duty in handling human remains. The decedent's aunt, when attempting to have her nephew’sbody exhumed so that he could be buried in another cemetery alongside his mother who had recently passed, discovered that his gravesite contained four different bodies, none of which were his. 43. The day after the initial Detroit News article was published, May 1, 2021, the Detroit News published an article entitled “Second Family Seeks Answers on Remains of Loved One at Detroit Cemetery”. The article highlighted the issues that appear to be pervasive throughout Gethsemane Cemetery through its years of gross mismanagement: the family of a woman who died in 2018 and was arranged to be buried at Gethsemane Cemetery said they were told that burials were backed up and that the ceremony would need to take place at a later date, however, when the family later contacted the cemetery they were told she had already been buried. The family was subsequently directed to what was purported to be the woman's gravesite. However, upon returning, cemetery personnel had directed the family to an entirely different plot in the cemetery 44. Asa result of these discoveries, the Detroit Police Department set up a hotline for families of people buried at Gethsemane Cemetery to report complaints and/or who had similar concems, Within a matter of weeks, the hotline received over 50 credible complaints. 45. On June 7, 2021, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Detroit Police Department aided in what would be 20 exhumations that stemmed from the complaints, That same day, seven exhumations had been completed, with reports confirming the misplacement of one of the bodies that was subject of the exhumations done 46. On information and belief, Defendants either “oversold” the plots at Gethsemane Cemetery, pursuing an intentional or reckless, willful and/or knowing policy of selling more burial plots than the amount of land available for burial, failed to take any steps to remedy these issues,and/or willfully or with gross negligence buried other containers in such a way that caused them to overlap with other burial plots at Gethsemane Cemetery. 47. Upon information and belief, Defendants made an intentional decision to ignore whether, and/or how many bodies are buried in spots that appear empty but may have been previously sold or otherwise were occupied by human remains. 48. Upon information and belief, Defendants have willfully disregarded their record keeping duties and/or have disregarded or failed to consult records kept by Defendants that reflect the true location of bodies within Gethsemane Cemetery 49, Instead, Defendants continue to perform new burials in areas that are saturated with existing graves, with the inevitable and foreseeable result that new graves encroach on exis ing graves, violate the boundaries of plots that have already been sold, and lead to the discovery of unidentified corpses in pre-purchased grave-plots. 50. Oninformation and belief, Defendants are misrepresenting where bodies are buried and/or continue to move or otherwise improperly dispose of human remains without required consents and/or approvals, and without providing any notice whatsoever to the decedents” families SI. Further, after being put on notice of multiple similar complaints, Defendants have failed to take any remedial action at Gethsemane Cemetery to prevent such situations from occurring in the future. 52. Defendants failed to timely probe graves when sold, failed to maintain maps and records of burials and failed to properly bury bodies to ensure that future burials will fit in purchased grave spaces at Gethsemane Cemetery. 53, Asis reflected by the foregoing facts and allegations, Defendants have engaged in a companywide pattern of unlawful activity in the death care services industry which has beenpromoted or tolerated by the Defendants for decades. The unlawful practices included, but were not limited to the following all of which occurred prior to this lawsuit: a, Defendants purporting to grant exclusive burial space to families and promising not to encroach on that private burial space, all the while knowing that the Defendants intended to violate these agreements in order to enrich the Defendants at the expense of their clients; b. Defendants burying individuals in the wrong grave spaces and/or on top of existing coffins; ¢. Defendants failing to keep accurate records regarding particular grave plots, 4. Defendants failing to have an individual's purchased grave plot available upon the individual’s death; e. Defendants burying individuals in a manner which encroached on previously granted grave plots; and f. Defendants knowingly selling grave plots without sufficient space and/or ‘margin for burial error as part of a pattern of Defendants’ conduct in attempting to squeeze more bodies into existing space in order to generate more profits 54, Despite Defendants’ actual knowledge of this outrageous pattem and practice of routinely violating contracts for burial service and the sale of burial plots at Gethsemane Cemetery, Defendants failed to disclose these issues to Plaintiffs, and misled the families and buyers, and recklessly failed to implement any policy or practice which would eliminate this outrageous conduct so as to avoid continuing harm to their burial service clients. 55, In order to continue their efforts to sell grave plots, burial services, grave markers, close and otherwise to generate more profits from their death care services, Defendants failed to their true intentions in that they failed to have any policy in place to accurately keep burial records and conduet proper burials to avoid encroaching on grave plots which they had sold to the Plaintifts and others similarly situated.56, Moreover, despite their actual knowledge of faulty and inaccurate burial records, Defendants recklessly and/or knowingly failed to pursue a cemetery-wide solution to known issues at Gethsemane Cemetery. 57. Upon information and belief, the Defendants continue to sell burial plots at Gethsemane Cemetery, and agree to reinternment of human remains, with knowledge or with reckless disregard for the truth of the representations made with respect to the burial plots being sold and/or the location and maintenance of human remains. 58. Plaintiffs in this case have been harmed by Defendants” unlawful conduct at Gethsemane Cemetery and seek relief from the Defendants for their failure to correct their practice and pattern of engaging in fraudulent sales of grave plots under circumstances which mislead the purchasers, and for Defendants’ failure to disclose their known problems and burial improprieties CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 59. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to MCR 3.501 on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated individuals and seeks to represent the following class: individuals and decedents’ family members who entered into agreements for burial plots, interment rights, and/or burial services at Gethsemane Cemetery. 60. The number of class members is sufficiently numerous to make class action status the most practical method for Plaintiffs to secure redress for injuries sustained and to obtain class wide equitable injunctive relief. 61. There are questions of law and fact raised by the named Plaintiffs’ claims common to those raised by the Class(es) they seek to represent. Such common questions predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the Class(es). 62, The violations of law and resulting harms alleged by the named Plaintiffs are typical of the legal violations and harms suffered by all Class members. 1263. Plaintifi’s will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class members. Plaintiffs’ counsel are unaware of any conflicts of interest between the Class representatives and absent Class members with respect to the matters at issue in this litigation; the Class representatives will vigorously prosecute the suit on behalf of the Class; and the Class representatives are represented by experienced counsel, Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys with substantial experience and expertise in complex and class action litigation involving personal and property damage. 64. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have identified and thoroughly investigated all claims in this action and have committed sufficient resources to represent the Class. 65. The maintenance of the a n as a class action will be superior to other available methods of adjudication and will promote the convenient administration of justice. Moreover, the prosec jion of separate actions by individual members of the Class could result in inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class and/or one or more of the Defendants. 66. Defendants have acted or failed to act on grounds generally applicable to all Plaintiffs, necessitating declaratory and injunctive relief for the Class 67. Plaintiffs and the Class incorporate by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein. 68. Pursuant to its equitable powers, this Court has the power to order accountings against corporate enterprises upon demand made by creditors and/or its potential creditors, 69. Based on the allegations set forth herein, there is imminent need to identify the remains buried at Gethsemane Cemetery.70. Am accounting of the burial plots and remains contained therein is justified in this matter and this Court should order that the Defendants provide a full accounting as to the location of the remains of each individual buried at Gethsemane Cemetery, and order that the remains be identified by reasonable means, including, but not limited to, by use of ground-penetrating radar, historical records, DNA testing, and exhumations COUNT I GROSS NEGLIGENCE 71. Plaintiffs and the Class incorporate by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein, 72. By contracting with Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ loved ones, and accepting the care, custody and control over the remains of the individuals interred within Gethsemane Cemetery, Defendants assumed a duty of care to Plaintiffs and the Class. Defendants” duties included, among other things’ a, To maintain accurate burial records and maps for the plots sold and burials effected within Gethsemane Cemetery; b. Not to sell burial plots with insufficient space to conduct a burial utilizing standard sized caskets and burial containers; ¢. Not to inter human remains in the wrong burial plots; d. Not to relocate human remains without authorization from the decedents’ loved ones; e. To handle human remains with reasonable dignity and respect: £ To employ policies and procedures for burials that avoid encroachment on private burial space when digging adjacent graves; 2. To avoid the routine damaging of pre-existing markers and gravestones when digging adjacent graves; hh. To properly supervise and train employees on the preparation of burial sites in a manner so as to avoid harm to nearby burial plots, graves and markers; 14i. To ensure that pre-purchased burial plots are available upon the death of the plot purchase j. To inspect Gethsemane Cemetery and the records associated with the cemeteries, investigate the problems outlined herein and take actions to correct, the problems; k. To provide reasonable perpetual care for the maintenance of all graves within Gethsemane Cemeter 73. failed to act with reasonable care in operating Gethsemane Cemetery. 74. Defendants’ breaches of their duties include, but are not limited to: m, Overselling burial plots; 1, Failing to maintain accurate burial records and maps of the cemetery; ©. Failing to maintain sufficient space between burial plots and graves to permit new graves to be excavated and prepared without damaging existing, nearby plots and graves; p. Burying human remains in the wrong plots; q. Relocating plots and/or human remains without proper notification and authorization; 1. Failing to handle human remains, caskets and burial containers with reasonable dignity and respect; and s. Recklessly and/or knowingly failing to pursue a cemetery-wide remedy, after being put on notice of similar incidents, to prevent future similar incidents and similar harm from occurring. 75. Defendants’ breaches of their duties to Plaintiffs and the Class were intentional, careless and/or reckless.76. Asa direct, proximate and foreseeable result of Defendants’ breaches of their duties, Plaintiffs and the Class suffered economic and non-economic damages, including physical injury due to the severe emotional distress described above. 77. Defendants knew or should have known that their intentional, careless and/or reckless actions would cause damages to Plaintiffs and the Class because of practices at Gethsemane Cemetery. COUNT IL LENT FRAUD 78, — Plaintififs and the Class incorporate by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein. 79. Defendants had a duty to not only be truthful, nut also to disclose material facts known to them. Yet, the Defendants, with malice and in bad faith, failed to so disclose. 80. Defendants falsely represented material facts regarding the location of the remains of Plaintiffs’ family members, including the correct placement thereof and whether and when remains and/or grave markers were removed, relocated, or otherwise disposed of. 81. Defendants had actual knowledge of these facts as Defendants were personally responsible for properly administering and maintaining Gethsemane Cemetery 82. Defendants’ failure to disclose these facts caused Plaintiff to have a false impression that the remains of their deceased loved ones were properly buried and undisturbed in a designated plot within the cemetery. 83. When Defendants failed to disclose these facts, Defendants knew the failure would create a false impression84. When Defendants failed to disclose these facts and their improper practices, Defendants intended that Pla fF rely on the resulting false impression in arranging for the burial of their family member at Gethsemane Cemetery. 85. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on the false impression, thereby causing Plaintiff and the Class to incur substantial damages as a proximate result thereof. RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant their request to proceed as a class action; appoint Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives and their counsel as Class Counsel; enter judgment against the Defendants on the claims asserted herein; award injunctive relief including in the form of an accounting of the remains within the burial plots, and award compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages and any other damages allowed by law; and grant such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate Respectfully submitted, ROSSMAN, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff By: /s/ Mark C. Rossman Mark C. Rossman (P63034) Elyse E. Palombit (P8206) 2145 Crooks Road, Suite 220 Troy, Michigan 48084 Telephone: (248) 385-5481 Facsimile: (248) 480-4936 mark@rossmanpe.com elyse@rossmanpe.com SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC Joseph G. Sauder 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (888)-711-9975 gs(@sstriallawyers.com Pro Hac Admission 10 be RequestedDated: June 9, 2021 BOCHETTO & LENTZ, P.C. Bryan R. Lentz, 1524 Locus Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 ‘Telephone: (215) 735-3900 blentz@bochettoandlentz.com Pro Hac Admission to be Requested