1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF NEVADA* * *DENISE BOORMAN, an individual and asthe personal representative of RICHARDLESLIE FRANCIS BOORMAN; BILLYCHRISTIAN BOORMAN, a minor;DEAN ALFRED BOORMAN; RITA VANINGEN; DIANE GOODWIN; andGEMMA BARKER,Plaintiffs,v.NEVADA MEMORIAL CREMATIONSOCIETY, INC., a Nevada corporationformerly identified as NEVADAFUNERAL SERVICE; STEVE ALLEN;ERIC ARCENEAUX; CLARK COUNTY;CLARK COUNTY CORONER’SOFFICE; and MONIQUE BEVERLY,Defendants. )))))))))))))))))))))))2:07-CV-00706-PMP-GWFORDER CERTIFYING QUESTIONSTO THENEVADA SUPREME COURTPursuant to Rule 5 of the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure, this Court seeksguidance from and respectfully certifies to the Nevada Supreme Court the followingquestions of law that may be determinative of matters before this Court and as to whichthere is no clearly controlling precedent in the decisions of the Nevada Supreme Court:1. What relationship must a plaintiff have to a deceased person to assert acognizable emotional distress claim related to the alleged mishandling of the deceasedperson’s remains? ///

Case 2:07-cv-00706-PMP-GWF Document 54 Filed 09/25/08 Page 1 of 13

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262

2. In asserting such a claim, must the plaintiff demonstrate physical impact orserious emotional distress causing physical injury or illness?3. In asserting such a claim, must the plaintiff observe or have some sensoryperception of the act causing insult to their loved one’s remains?4. Does a county coroner’s office owe a duty to the family members of adeceased individual not to lose, misplace, or misappropriate the deceased person’s organssuch that the county coroner’s office could be liable for emotional distress claims?5. If the answer to question four is yes, to what class of persons is such a dutyowed?6. Does a county coroner’s office owe a fiduciary duty to the family members of a deceased individual not to lose, misplace, or misappropriate the deceased person’s organs,or to inform the family members about the whereabouts of such organs?7. If the answer to question six is yes, to what class of persons is such a dutyowed?8. Does a claim for conversion of a deceased human body or its parts exist underNevada law?9. If the answer to question eight is yes, what class of persons may bring such aclaim?10. If the answer to question eight is yes, may such a plaintiff recover emotionaldistress damages arising out of the conversion of the human remains?

I. BACKGROUND

This is a diversity action brought by relatives of Richard Boorman (“Richard”), acitizen of the United Kingdom who died on June 28, 2005, while visiting Las Vegas. (Am.Compl. [Doc. #23] at 2-3, 5.) Plaintiffs are Richard’s mother and personal representative,brothers, grandmother, cousin, and aunt. (Id.) ///

Case 2:07-cv-00706-PMP-GWF Document 54 Filed 09/25/08 Page 2 of 13

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425263

Richard’s body was transported to Defendant Clark County Nevada Coroner’sOffice (“Coroner”). (Id. at 6.) The Coroner performed an autopsy which required theCoroner to remove Richard’s internal organs for examination. (Id.) The Coronersubsequently released the body to Defendant Nevada Memorial Cremation Society, Inc.(“Funeral Service”) for embalming. (Id.) When Richard’s body was returned to England, itwas discovered that his internal organs were missing. (Id.)Plaintiffs Denise Boorman, Richard’s mother, and Billy Boorman, Richard’sbrother, initially brought this action on May 31, 2007, against Defendant Funeral Service.(Compl. [Doc. #1].) Plaintiffs also named Doe defendants who Plaintiffs alleged “are insome manner responsible for the events and happenings referred to and caused the damagesas alleged herein.” (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiffs brought claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”), andnegligence based on the misplacement of Richard’s organs. (Id. at 4-6.)Plaintiffs amended their Complaint on March 18, 2008, adding Plaintiffs,Defendants, and causes of action. In addition to Denise and Billy Boorman, the AmendedComplaint added as Plaintiffs Dean Boorman, Richard’s brother; Rita Van Ingen, Richard’sgrandmother; Diane Goodwin, Richard’s aunt; and Gemma Barker, Richard’s cousin. (Am.Compl. at 2-3.) The Amended Complaint also substituted Doe defendants for DefendantClark County; Defendant Clark County Coroner’s Office; Steve Allen (“Allen”), a FuneralService employee; Eric Arceneaux (“Arceneaux”), a Funeral Service employee; andMonique Beverley (“Beverley”), a Coroner’s Office employee. (Id. at 3-4.)Finally, the Amended Complaint added new factual allegations and relatedcauses of action. The Amended Complaint alleges Defendant Coroner took or lostRichard’s organs, falsely represented that it turned the organs over to Defendant FuneralService, and conspired with Funeral Service to conceal what happened to Richard’s organs.(Id. at 6-9.) Plaintiffs contend Coroner employee Beverley initially marked a release form