Mortuary Mishap Ends in $950K Settlement

Case Background

This legal action, formally titled Sheila Esfahani Goe, et al. v. Zirius, Inc., et al. (Case No. 23AHCV01969), arose from a deeply upsetting incident concerning the handling of human remains. The family of the deceased, represented by Sheila Esfahani Goe, Sharleen Esfahani, Shervin Esfahani, Shervon Esfahani, and Parvin Esfahani, filed the complaint on August 28, 2023, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Pasadena Courthouse.

Cause

The Plaintiffs centered their complaint around the Defendants’ alleged mishandling of the remains of their loved one, which caused the family severe emotional distress. The lawsuit claimed that the Defendants, including Mountain View Mortuary, failed to properly prepare and manage the body in accordance with the contract and the basic standard of care expected of a professional mortuary. The family accused the Defendants of breaching the sacred trust associated with funeral arrangements.

Injury

The primary injury claimed by the Plaintiffs was the profound and severe emotional distress they endured upon discovering the alleged mistreatment of their relative's remains. This emotional suffering stemmed from the desecration of the deceased's body and the subsequent disruption to their mourning process. The Plaintiffs stated the Defendants’ actions caused them mental anguish, anxiety, humiliation, and distress they would be unable to cope with.

Damages Sought

The family sought various forms of financial recovery. For the breach of contract, they initially requested a specific amount of $2,500. Beyond that, they pursued unspecified compensatory damages for pain and suffering based on the severe emotional distress they had undergone. They also requested compensation for past and future medical and sundry expenses related to their psychological injury. Finally, the family also demanded punitive damages against the Defendants, arguing the actions represented an extreme and outrageous disregard for their feelings and rights.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The case focused on the duty of care funeral and mortuary services owe to the deceased and their families. The proceedings, which began after the complaint was filed, involved initial exchanges of legal documents and negotiations before the matter reached a trial.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Sheila Esfahani Goe | Sharleen Esfahani | Shervin Esfahani | Shervon Esfahani | Parvin Esfahani.

·       Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Jarod A. Krissman | Deady Ian Christopher

Defendant(s): Zirius, Inc | Mountain View Mortuary | Does 1 to 20, inclusive.

·       Counsel for Defendant(s): Robert V. Richter | James E. Siepler

·       Expert Witness: Connie Yee | Jasmin Jackson

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

The legal arguments revolved around establishing the Defendants' professional responsibilities and the extreme nature of the alleged failures.

Claims

The Plaintiffs filed three distinct causes of action against the mortuary and the related entities:

Negligence: The family alleged that the Defendants failed to use ordinary care in preparing, safeguarding, and caring for the deceased's body. They asserted that this failure directly caused the emotional distress and injuries they later suffered.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: This claim carried a higher bar, requiring proof that the Defendants' conduct was outrageous, exceeded all bounds of what a civilized society considered tolerable, and that the Defendants had acted either intentionally or with reckless disregard for the Plaintiffs' emotional well-being. The family argued the alleged mishandling of the remains met this extreme standard.

Breach of Contract: The Plaintiffs asserted that a valid contract existed for the respectful and professional handling of the deceased's body. They contended that the Defendants’ subsequent actions constituted a clear breach of the terms of this agreement, justifying the claim for the economic damages related to the cost of the services.

Defense

The defense, represented by counsel for Mountain View Mortuary, strongly denied all allegations. They asserted that the mortuary performed its duties with professionalism and that the claims were without merit. In their formal answer, the Defendants raised numerous affirmative defenses. These defenses included asserting that the Plaintiffs had failed to mitigate their alleged damages, that any emotional distress was pre-existing or caused by external factors, and that the claims were barred by various statutes of limitations or governmental immunities, though the latter was generally less applicable to private entities. The defense essentially claimed that the mortuary had exercised due care and that no liability existed for the Plaintiffs’ emotional suffering.

Settlement

Before the case proceeded to a full jury trial, the parties reached a mutual agreement to resolve the dispute. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants engaged in extensive settlement negotiations to avoid the uncertainty and high costs of litigation.

The parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement on 23rd July 2025, which the Court finalized. The Defendants agreed to pay the Plaintiffs a total settlement amount of $950,000 to resolve all claims related to the mishandling of the deceased's remains. This settlement served as a final disposition of the claims of negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract, officially concluding the family’s lawsuit against the mortuary and its affiliated entities.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com