Case 2:13-cv-07124-SD Document 1 Filed 12/06/13 ...

Transcription

Case 2:13-cv-07124-SD Document 1 Filed 12/06/13 Page 1 of 19
CIVIL COVER SHEET
IS 44 (Rev. 12/12)
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEA7’ PAGE OT" IBIS fORM)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
Craig and Beverly LaLoup
16 Michael Court
Coatesville, PA 19320
(b)
by law, except as
of Court for the
United States Dept. of Defense, United States Dept. of Navy and
United States of America
County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT/N U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
District of Columbia
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: INLAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c)
Attorneys (i( Known)
Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Layser & Freiwald, P.C.
1500 Walnut Street 18th Fl
Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 875-8000
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION
El 1
2
U.S. Government
Plaintiff
El 3
U S Government
El 4
CONTRACT
El ItO Insurance
El 120 Marine
El 130 Miller Act
El 140 Negotiable Instrument
El ISO Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
El 151 Medicare Act
El 152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
El 153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran’s Benefits
El 160 Stockholders’ Suits
El IOU Other Contract
El 195 Contract Product Liability
El 196 Franchise
Diversity
Citizen of This Stale
El 1
DEE
El 1
Citizen of Another State
El 2
El
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country
El 3
El
(Place an "K" in One Box On/e)
TORTS
PERSONAL INJURY
El 310 Airplane
El 315 Airplane Product
Liability
El 320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
El 330 Federal Employers’
Liability
El 340 Marine
El 345 Marine Product
Liability
El 350 Motor Vehicle
El 355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
N 360 Other Personal
Injury
0 362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
REAL PROPERTY
El 210 Land Condemnation
El 220 Foreclosure
El 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
El 240 Torts to Lurid
El 245 Tots Product Liability
0 290 All Other Real Property
V. ORIGIN
Federal Question
CIVIL RIGHTS
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
PERSONAL INJURY
El 365 Personal Injury Product Liability
El 367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
El 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
El 625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 881
El 690 Other
El 4
El 4
2
incorporated and Principal Place
of Business In Another Stale
El
5
El 5
3
Foreign Nation
El 6
El 6
El 370 Other Fraud
El 371 Truth in Lending
El 380 Other Personal
Property Damage
El 385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PROPERTY RIGHTS
PRISONER PETITIONS
El 440 Other Civil Rights
Habeas Corpus:
El 441 Voting
El 463 Alien Detainee
El 442 Employment
El 510 Motions 10 Vacate
El 443 Housing/
Sentence
Accommodations
El 530 General
El 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 0 535 Death Penalty
Employment
Other:
El 446 Airier. w/Drsabilities - 0 540 Mandamus & Other
Other
El 550 Civil Rights
El 448 Education
El 555 Prison Condition
Cl 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement
Act
El 720 Labor/Management
Relations
El 740 Railway Labor Act
El 751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
Cl 790 Other Labor Litigation
El 791 Employee Retirement
income Security Act
OTHER STATUTES
BANKRUPTCY
El 422 Appeal 28 USC 158
El 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
El 820 Copyrights
El 830 Patent
El 840 Trademark
LABOR
PERSONAL PROPERTY El 710 Fair Labor Standards
(Place an "X" in One Box/hr Plaintiff
and One Box jhr Oe/hndani)
PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
of Business in This State
(Indicate Citizenship a/Parties in Item III)
IV. NATURE OF SUIT
I
(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
(U.S. Government Not a Pony)
Defendant
I
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES
(Place an "X" in One Box Only)
SOCIAL SECURITY
El 861 HIA (I 395ff)
El 862 Black Lung (923)
El 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
El 864 SSID Title XVI
El 865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
El 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
El 871 IRSThird Party
26 USC 7609
El 375 False Claims Act
El 400 State Reapportionment
El 410 Antitrust
El 430 Banks and Banking
El 450 Commerce
El 460 Deportation
El 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
El 480 Consumer Credit
El 490 Cable/Sat TV
El 850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
El 890 Other Statutory Actions
El 891 Agricultural Acts
El 893 Environmental Matters
El 895 Freedom of Information
Act
El 896 Arbitration
El 899 Admiiiisirative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
El 950 Constitutionality of
Slate Statutes
IMMIGRATION
El 462 Naturalization Application
El 465 Other Immigration
Actions
(Place an "X" in One Box Only)
I Original
Proceeding
El 2 Removed from
State Court
rl
3 Remanded from
Appellate Court
0 4 Reinstated or 0 5 Transferred from
Reopened
Another District
0 6 Multidistrict
Litigation
(spec/f)’)
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
(Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
Defendant is United States
Brief description of cause
Defendants mishandled Plaintiffs son’s body causing emotional distress.
VII. REQUESTED IN
0 CHECK IF THIS IS CLASS ACTION
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE
DATE
\i,\
RECEIPT #
DEMANDS
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint,
JURY DEMAND:
DOCKET NUMBER
SIGNA URE OF ORNEY OF RECORD
\
k
AMOUNT
APPLYING IFP
JUDGE
MAG. JUDGE
Yes
El No
I
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM
Craig and Beverly LaLoup
CIVIL ACTION
:
V.
United States Dept. of Defense,:
et al
NO.
In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for
plaintiff shall complete a Case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of
filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See § 1:03 of the plan set forth on the reverse
side of this form.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said
designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on the
plaintiff and all other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying the track to which
that defendant believes the case should be assigned.
SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:
(a) Habeas Corpus - Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 through § 2255.
()
(b) Social Security - Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health
and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits.
()
(c) Arbitration - Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule
53.2.
()
(d) Asbestos - Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from
exposure to asbestos.
()
(e) Special Management - Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that are
commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by
the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special
management cases.)
(X)
(f) Standard Management - Cases that do not fall into any one of the
12/6/13
Date
215-875-8000
Telephone
(Civ. 660) 10/02
Aaron J. Freiwald
Attorney-at-law
215-875-8575
FAX Number
r tracks.
()
Attorney for P taint i ffs
[email protected]
E-Mail Address
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
assignment to appropriate calendar.
Addressofplaintiff:
AddressofDefendant:
DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel to indicate the category of
16 Michael Court, Coatesville, PA 19320
1000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, D.C.
the case for the purpose of
20301
Pennsylvania
Place of Accident, Incident or Transaction:
(Use Reverse Side For Additional Space)
Does this civil action involve a nongovernmental corporate party with any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock?
(Attach two copies of the Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1(a))
YesD NoE
YesD
Does this case involve multidistriet litigation possibilities?
Nol
RELATED CASE, IFANY:
Date Terminated:
Judge
Case Number:
Civil cases are deemed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions:
1. Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court?
YesD NoD
2. Does this case involve the same issue of factor grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit pending or within one year previously terminated
action in this court?
NoD
Yes[]
3. Does this case involve the validity or infringement of a patent already in suitor any earlier numbered ease pending or within one year previously
NoD
terminated action in this court?
yes[]
4. Is this case a second or successive habeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro se civil rights case filed by the same individual?
Yes[]
CIVIL: (Place
A.
1.
V in ONE CATEGORY ONLY)
B. Diversity Jurisdiction Cases:
Federal Question Cases:
0
NoD
Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts
1.
0
Insurance Contract and Other Contracts
2.
0
FELA
2. o Airplane Personal Injury
3.
0
Jones Act-Personal Injury
3.
4.
0
5,
0
Patent
5.
6.
0
Labor-Management Relations
6. 0 Other Personal Injury (Please specify)
7.
0
Civil Rights
7.
8.
0
Habeas Corpus
8. 0 Products Liability
9.
0
Securities Act(s) Cases
9. 0 All other Diversity Cases
0
Assault, Defamation
4. 0 Marine Personal Injury
Antitrust
0
0
Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Products Liability
10.0 Social Security Review Cases
11.
0
Asbestos
(Please specify)
All other Federal Question Cases
(Please specify)
ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION
,Aaron J. Freiwald
(Check Appropriate Category)
,counsel of record do hereby certify:
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, Section 3(e)(2), that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case exceed the sum of
$150,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs;
U Relief other than monetary damages is sou
DATE:
1216/1
I certify that, to my knowledge, the within
except as noted above.
DATE:
78028
Attorney-at-Law Aaron J. I r e i wa 1 d
Attorney I,D.#
NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38.
to any case now pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court
78028
12/6/13
Attorney-at-Law
CIV. 609 (5/2012)
Aaron J. Fr e i wa 1 d
Attorney I.D.#
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel to indicate the category of the case for the purpose of
assignment to appropriate calendar.
AddressofPlaintiff:
Address ofDefendant:
16 Michael Court, Coatesville, PA 19320
1000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, D.C.
20301
Pennsylvania
Place of Accident, Incident or Transaction:
(Use Reverse Side For Additional Space)
Does this civil action involve a nongovernmental corporate party with any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock?
(Attach two copies of the Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1(a))
YesD Nol
Does this case involve multidistrict litigation possibilities?
Yes[]
Nol
RELATED CASE, IF ANY:
Case Number:
Date Terminated:
Judge
Civil cases are deemed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions:
1. Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court?
yes El NOD
2. Does this case involve the same issue of factor grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit pending or within one year previously terminated
action in this court?
yes El
NOD
3. Does this case involve the validity or infringement of a patent already in suit or any earlier numbered case pending or within one year previously
No El
terminated action in this court?
Yes[]
4. Is this case a second or successive habeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro se civil rights case filed by the same individual?
yes El
CIVIL: (Place
V in ONE CATEGORY ONLY)
A. Federal Question Cases:
1. tt Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts
2.
NoD
D
FELA
Jones Act-Personal Injury
B. Diversity Jurisdiction Cases:
I.
U
Insurance Contract and Other Contracts
2.
0
Airplane Personal Injury
3.
U
Assault, Defamation
4.
U
Marine Personal Injury
3,
U
4.
U
5.
0
Patent
5.
U
Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
6.
0
Labor-Management Relations
6.
U
Other Personal Injury (Please specify)
7.
U
Civil Rights
7.
U
Products Liability
8.
U
Habeas Corpus
8.
U
Products Liability
9.
U
Securities Act(s) Cases
9.
0
All other Diversity Cases
10.
U
Social Security Review Cases
11.
0
All other Federal Question Cases
(Please specify)
Antitrust
Asbestos
(Please specify)
ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION
I,
Aaron J . Freiwald
Ek Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, Section 3(c)(2)
$150,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs;
0 Relief other than monetary damages is sought.
DATE:
12/6/1 ’
78028
_______
_________________
r e 1w a 1 d
Attorney-at-Law Aaron ai I
Attorney I.D.#
NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38.
I certify that, to my knowledge, the within
except as noted above.
DATE:
(Check Appropriate Category)
, counsel of record do hereby certify:
best of my knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case exceed the sum of
to any case ,now pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court
12/6/13
Attorney-at-Law
CIV. 609 (5/2012)
Aaron J. F r e 1w a 1 d
Attorney I.D.#
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CRAIG AND BEVERLY LALOUP
16 Michael Court
Coatesville, PA 19320
Plaintiffs
V.
UNITED STATES DEPT. OF DEFENSE
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1000
CIVIL ACTION
NO.
and
UNITED STATES DEPT. OF NAVY
1000 Navy Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1000
and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE
615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250
Philadelphia, PA 19106
do
Defendants
COMPLAINT
I.
INTRODUCTION
This action involves Defendants’ attempts to conceal from Plaintiffs that their son, Sgt.
Brian LaLoup, USMC, had been illegal autopsied, which included
the removal of his heart, by the Greek government. Furthermore,
Defendants failed to take the appropriate steps to have Sgt. LaLoup’s
heart returned from Greece. As a result, the Plaintiffs unwittingly
buried their son without his heart and have suffered severe emotional
injuries.
Sgt. LaLoup’s death came after he attended an off-duty
embassy party, on August 12, 2012. Sgt. LaLoup served as part of
the Marine Corps Security Group assigned to the American Embassy
in Athens, Greece. During the party, Sgt. LaLoup reported to a
fellow service member that he was thinking about suicide. As
I
required by Marine Corps protocol, these comments were reported to the Detachment
Commander, Staff Sgt. Martinez.
Unfortunately, Staff Sgt. Martinez failed to follow appropriate protocols and procedures,
which required him to obtain supervision and medical treatment for Sgt. LaLoup, and instead
decided to take him out for more drinking. Prior to leaving and despite being visibly intoxicated
and distraught, Sgt. LaLoup was allowed to pass the guard at the entry to the chancery and enter
the response room. The chancery, which had been left unsecured, is where weapons were stored.
Thereafter, according to military reports, Sgt. LaLoup shot himself in the head with an embassy
service weapon.
2
Sgt. LaLoup was taken by Greek ambulance to the General Hospital of Athens. Contrary
to established protocols, Sgt. LaLoup was left unguarded at the hospital. After Sgt. LaLoup was
pronounced dead, the Greek government, in violation of Sgt. LaLoup’s diplomatic status,
autopsied his body. During the autopsy Sgt. LaLoup’s heart was stolen and illegally harvested by
the Greek government.
It was readily known or foreseeable that Sgt. LaLoup’s body would be mutilated,
disfigured and illegally autopsied if left behind unguarded. Yet, Defendants did nothing to insure
that Sgt. LaLoup was treated with the respect owed a United States Marine. Moreover,
Defendants failed to take the necessary steps to have Sgt. LaLoup’s heart returned from Greece.
Instead, Defendants worked to conceal the fact that Sgt. LaLoup’s heart had been stolen.
At the time his body was returned to the United States, Plaintiffs, Sgt. LaLoup’s parents,
Craig and Beverly LaLoup, were given knowingly false information about Sgt. LaLoup’s
remains. As a result, the LaLoups unwittingly buried their son without his heart. Defendants’
intentional, reckless and wanton actions of the Defendants have caused Plaintiffs significant
mental distress and grief.
II. THE PARTIES
Plaintiffs Beverly and Craig LaLoup, husband and wife, are adult citizens and
residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing at 16 Michael Court, Coatesville,
Pennsylvania 19320.
2.
Plaintiffs Beverly and Craig LaLoup, are the parents and next of kin of Sergeant
Brian LaLoup, USMC (deceased).
3.
Beverly LaLoup is the Administratrix of the Estate of Sgt. Brian LaLoup, DOB
3
December 24, 1990.
4.
Defendant, the United States Department of Defense, is a federal agency that
is headquartered at 1000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1000.
5.
Defendant, the United States Department of Navy, is a federal agency that
is headquartered at 1000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-1000.
6.
Defendant, the United States of America,
do
Attorney General of the United
States, is the employer and holds ultimate responsibility for the actions of the Department of
Defense and Department of Navy.
7.
Defendant, the United States of America,
do
United States Attorney’s Office, is
located at 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250, Philadelphia, PA 19106.
8.
At all relevant times, Defendants, through their employees, were responsible for
the retrieval, preservation, maintenance and transfer of Sgt. LaLoup’s body to Plaintiffs.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2675(a), notice of the Plaintiffs’ claims against
Department of Defense and Department of State were sent on February 28, 2013.
10.
Plaintiffs were subsequently notified that the appropriate agency was the
Department of Navy and that the claim forms were defective and needed to be resubmitted to the
correct agency.
11.
The claim forms were perfected and resubmitted, on May 22, 2013, to the
Department of the Navy, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Tort Claims Unit, Norfolk.
12.
The Department of Navy has yet to deny or settle Plaintiffs’ claims.
rd
13.
It has been more than six months since the Plaintiffs submitted their perfected
notice forms to the Department of Navy.
14.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs may consider Defendants’ inaction as a denial. See 28
U.S.C. §2401(b).
15.
Thus, this Court has jurisdiction over this action against the United States. See
Woody. United States, 961 F.2d 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
IV. FACTS
16.
Sergeant Brian LaLoup, was born on December 24, 1990 in Bryn Mawr Hospital
in Pennsylvania.
17.
Sergeant LaLoup enlisted in the United States Marine Corps on May 8, 2008 and
was on continuous active duty from February 9, 2009 until the date of his death.
18.
On May 13, 2011, Sgt. LaLoup reported for embassy security duty at the United
States Embassy Pretoria, South Africa.
As a member of embassy security, Sgt.
LaLoup was entrusted with the
protection of the embassy and of
visiting officials, like the First Lady
Michelle Obama. (In the photo,
Sgt. LaLoup is second from the right.)
19.
On May 20, 2012, Sgt. LaLoup reported for embassy security duty at the United
States Embassy Athens, Greece.
20.
At approximately 6:30 pm, on August 11, 2012, Sgt. LaLoup attended a party at
the Marine Security Guard Residence on the grounds of the embassy compound in Athens,
Greece.
21.
During the party, Sgt. LaLoup was observed drinking beer and shots of hard
22.
From approximately midnight to 1:25 am, Sgt. LaLoup reported to a fellow
liquor.
service member that he was having suicidal thoughts. Sgt. LaLoup was visibly distraught and
was overheard saying, "I don’t have anyone who loves me. . . that he drank so much because he
is sad all the time and that he had thoughts of shooting himself in the face with a shotgun."
23.
Pursuant to Marine Corps policy, these comments were reported to the
Detachment Commander, SSgt. Martinez, who was also at the same party.
24.
After being informed of Sgt. LaLoup’s comments, SSgt. Martinez decided to take
Sgt. LaLoup out drinking.
25.
SSgt. Martinez’s decision to take Sgt. LaLoup out for more drinking was a
violation of Marine Corps policies and procedures regarding suicidal ideation, which required
supervision and medical treatment.
26.
After returning from his room, at approximately 1:35 am, Sgt. LaLoup was seen
sprinting from the area where the party was taking place toward the chancery.
27.
Despite the fact that Sgt. LaLoup was visibly intoxicated, obviously distraught,
and out of breath from sprinting, he was given access by the Marine on duty through the hard line
at the entry to the chancery.
28.
After entering the chancery, Sgt. LaLoup went directly into the embassy response
room, which had been left unsecured.
29.
The embassy response room is where the Marines attached to the embassy
security detail keep their weapons.
30.
At all relevant times, Defendants failed to follow proper embassy security polices
relating to securing the response room door. In fact, according to the Marine on duty, the
response room door was not secured, but had been left wedged open.
31.
Since Defendants failed to secure the response room, Sgt. LaLoup was free to
enter the room and obtain a weapon from the unsecured gun lockers.
32.
After obtaining a gun from the unsecured lockers, Sgt. LaLoup was reportedly
seen placing the gun to his head and firing.
33.
After the shot was fired, Sgt. LaLoup’s fellow Marines entered the response room
and began providing first aid. In addition, the Marines called for emergency services.
34.
It is unclear why Sgt. LaLoup was not treated by United States military personnel
as opposed to Greek medical personnel.
35.
At approximately 2:03 am, Sgt. LaLoup was transported via Greek ambulance to
Evangelismos General Hospital in Athens.
36.
Contrary to the Embassy’s and Marine Corps policies, Sgt. LaLoup was left
alone and unguarded after arriving at Evangelismos General Hospital.
37,
At approximately 3:45 am, Sgt. LaLoup was pronounced dead. After Sgt. LaLoup
passed away, his body was left unguarded and alone in the Greek morgue.
38.
On August 12, 2012, the United States Marne Corps informed Plaintiffs that their
son had passed away.
7
39.
On August 18, 2012, Greek officials performed an illegal autopsy on Sgt. LaLoup,
in violation of his diplomatic immunity and without the consent of the next of kin. The autopsy
was also performed over the objection of the United States Government.
40.
As part of the illegal autopsy, Greek officials removed Sgt. LaLoup’s heart.
41.
On August 20, 2012, Sgt. LaLoup’s body, without his heart, was flown from
Athens, Greece to Ramstein, Germany and then to Dover, Delaware.
42.
On August 22, 2012, a second autopsy was conducted in Delaware on Sgt.
LaLoup’s remains.
43.
During this autopsy, it was discovered by Defendants that Sgt. LaLoup’s heart
had been removed from his body.
44.
Despite knowing that Sgt. LaLoup’s heart had been removed, Defendants failed to
take the necessary steps to have the heart returned from Greece to his family.
45.
Instead of being honest and up-front with the family and taking the appropriate
action to have the heart returned, Defendants decided to lie and conceal this fact from the
Plaintiffs. As a result of Defendants’ failure to act, Sgt. LaLoup’s heart was destroyed by the
Greek government.
46.
On August 23 or 24, 2012, Mrs. LaLoup received a call from SSgt. McClendon
(one of the assigned CACO Officers) regarding a form. According to SSgt. McClendon, the
form was a standard form that needed to be signed quickly.
47.
Mrs. LaLoup was told that she needed to sign so that the body could be released
from Dover in time for the funeral.
48.
During the call, SSgt. McClendon told Mrs. LaLoup that parts of Sgt. LaLoup’s
scalp were missing.
49.
Mrs. LaLoup believed this was based on the manner of death and that a bit of
missing scalp made sense.
50.
Mrs. LaLoup asked SSgt. McClendon how much was missing because she was
hoping to have an open casket at the memorial service.
51.
SSgt. McClendon stated, "I know you were going to ask that so I made the inquiry
and was told his hat would cover it."
52.
Later that day or perhaps the next day, SSgt. McClendon came to Mrs. LaLoup’s
place of employment at 8 Dowlin Forge Road, Exton, PA 19341, so that she could sign the form.
It should be noted that SSgt. McClendon went so far in his efforts to conceal Sgt. LaLoup’s heart
that he signed the election portions of the form himself, instead of having the Plaintiffs sign.
53.
Mrs. LaLoup signed the form believing that only a small piece of scalp was
missing from her son’s body.
54.
SSgt. McClendon, presumably acting on orders, concealed the fact that Sgt.
LaLoup’s body was incomplete because his heart had been left behind in Greece.
55.
On August 27, 2012, the Plaintiffs were picked up at their home at 106 Lloyd
Avenue, Downingtown, PA 19335, by 1st Sgt. Dixon and SSgt. McClendon.
56.
The Plaintiffs were taken to the Dover Air Force Base mortuary to pick up the
body of Sgt. LaLoup and to bring him back to the Donohue Funeral Home in West Chester,
Pennsylvania.
57.
When the Plaintiffs arrived at the funeral home, Sgt. LaLoup’ s casket was carried
Ne
into the room of the funeral home where the viewing and memorial service were going to be
held.
58.
The family was asked to remain outside while the Marines prepared Sgt. LaLoup
to be viewed by his parents.
59.
At no time did the Marines inform the Plaintiffs that their son’s body was missing
60.
When the family was allowed in to see Sgt. LaLoup, the LaLoups immediately
noticed he was not wearing his hat. Upon closer observation, the Plaintiffs noticed a large
indentation on the right rear side of their son’s head. His hair did a good job of covering the
indentation so it was not addressed by the family.
61.
On August 29, 2012, Sgt. LaLoup was buried with full military honors at 11:30
am at Washington Crossing National Veterans Cemetery in Upper Makefield Township, Bucks
County, PA.
62.
At the time of his funeral, Plaintiffs thought they were burying all of their son,
including his heart.
63.
A few days later, on September 4, 2012, 1st Sgt. Dixon came to the Plaintiffs’
home to sign a Request For Autopsy Report & Supplemental Information Form.
64.
First Sgt, Dixon came back to the LaLoups’ home on September 5th and
September 17th, to sign the Claim Form For SGLT, the MGIB/VEAP Reimbursement Request,
and the Claim for Unpaid Compensation of deceased Member of the Uniformed Services fonm
65.
During the visit on September 17th, 1st Sgt. Dixon by accident informed the
Plaintiffs that Sgt. LaLoup’s body was missing his heart.
10
66.
According to Mrs. LaLoup:
1St SGT Dixon was at our home at 106 Lloyd Avenue, Downingtown, PA to have
us sign more papers. During this visit, I asked him what would happen if more of
Brian’s scalp was recovered. Would it be returned to us? He looked at me funny
as he started to go thru his folder and said "Ma’am, what are you talking about?"
I replied, the missing scalp parts. What would be done if more was recovered. He
replied to me, as he was still searching for something in his folder, that the scalp is
not what was missing. He even stated that he had just gone thru the folder before
he came to make sure he was familiar with everything and did not recall seeing
anything about missing scalp parts. We all sat there for a few moments as he
continued to go thru his folder. Finally, he found what he was looking for and
said, "Ma’am, that is not what was missing." "1 stated, what do you mean?" He
extended to me a piece of paper as he stated it was his heart that was missing. I
asked him why were we told it was parts of his scalp. His reply was, "that they
were not going to tell us because that is not something you tell a grieving mother."
I read the document he had handed me and sure enough, it was a letter from the
Dover Mortuary to Marines Casualty Office informing them "remains of the
above individual are incomplete. Please obtain subsequent recovery instructions
from the next of kin. Remains Summary: Non-intact body. Embalmed and
autopsied in Greece. Missing heart". It was validated by Jairo E. Fortalatin,
Investigator and Authorized by AbuBakr Marzouuk, Col USAF, MC, FS.
Statement of Mrs. LaLoup.
67.
After being told that their son had been buried without his heart, Plaintiffs were
absolutely devastated.
68.
In addition, Defendants’ actions to conceal Sgt. LaLoup’s missing heart created
new levels of grief and emotional pain and suffering. Plaintiffs were left to wonder what had
11
really happened to their son, what had happened to his heart and why he had been allowed to die
in the Greek hospital so that his heart could be harvested.
Defendants’ failure to act and the loss and destruction of Sgt. LaLoup’s heart has
69.
traumatized Plaintiffs and left them in a state of severe emotional distress, including but not
limited to depression, sleeplessness and anxiety attacks.
Immediately after being informed of the missing heart, Mrs. LaLoup called
70.
everyone she could think of, including the US Ambassador in Greece, the Commandant of the
Marine Corps, various congressmen, Sgt. LaLoup’s region commander, and the State
Department. Everyone Mrs. LaLoup spoke to was shocked and outraged over the theft of Sgt.
LaLoup’s heart. In fact, the Commandant asked to meet with the family, however, without
explanation that meeting never happened.
71.
On October 22, 2012, Defendants determined that Sgt. LaLoup’s death occurred
while in the line of duty and was not due to his own misconduct.
72.
In addition, Defendants ordered a re-examination of policies and procedures in all
regions regarding access to the embassy response room, where weapons are kept, by MSGs who
are not on duty.
73.
In an attempt to pacify the Plaintiffs, Defendants and the Greek government had a
heart shipped to Dover claiming that it was Sgt. LaLoup’s missing heart.
74.
DNA testing revealed that the heart was not Sgt. LaLoup’s heart.
75.
As of today, Sgt. LaLoup’s heart has still not been found or returned to his family.
12
V. CLAIMS
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Mishandling of Sgt. LaLoup’s Body
76.
The previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference.
77.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’, their agents, servants, or
employees, actions Plaintiffs have suffered severe and disabling emotional injuries including but
not limited to depression, sleeplessness, and anxiety attacks.
78.
The injuries described above were caused solely and exclusively by the actions of
Defendants through their agents, servants, and/or employees and were in no manner whatsoever
caused or contributed to by any act or omission on the part of the Plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment for compensatory and punitive damages
against Defendants in excess of $75,000.00, together with interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and
whatever additional relief the Court deems appropriate.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
79.
80.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’, their agents, servants, or
employees, actions Plaintiffs have suffered severe and disabling emotional injuries including but
not limited to depression, sleeplessness, and anxiety attacks.
81.
13
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment for compensatory and punitive damages
against Defendants in excess of $75,000.00, together with interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and
whatever additional relief the Court deems appropriate.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
82.
83.
As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, their agents,
servants, or employees, Plaintiffs have suffered severe and disabling emotional injuries including
but not limited to depression, sleeplessness, and anxiety attacks.
84.
14
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment for damages against Defendants in excess of
$75,000.00, together with interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and whatever additional relief the Court
deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
LAYSER & FREIWALD, P.C.
By:
A ON J. FREIWALD, ESQUIRE
GLENN A. ELLIS, ESQUIRE
Counsel for Plaintiffs
LAYSER & FREIWALD, P.C.
1500 Walnut Street 18 ’h Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
215-875-8000
Fax: 215-875-8575
[email protected]
gae(1ayserfreiwald.corn
Dated:
15

Case 2:13-cv-07124-SD Document 1 Filed 12/06/13 ...

Transcription

Similar documents

A LOOK AT NOSE ART

here

Piotr Going Away

Technical Sgt Charles Edward Ballance

Guide PDF - Teknokroma

Untitled - ChicagoCop.com

Vance Nolan Building - The GENE VANCE JR FOUNDATION

After-Hours Mixer at Hecker Pass Plaza May 8, 2014

File - The Kernowkid

comm news may 14 copy.pptx - Lincolnshire County Council