RAMIREZ_PetitionFOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI_2_6_2017
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
2<br />
JURISDICTION<br />
The Eleventh Circuit did not consider Ramirez’s unopposed motion to accept the<br />
appendix below as timely filed, and therefore did not enter an order on that motion.<br />
See A. 26, 27, 34, 35, 44. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed this case on April 20, 2016.<br />
A. 1, 34, 52. It denied Ramirez’s first motion to reinstate the appeal on July 14,<br />
2016. A. 2, 52. It denied his second motion to reinstate the appeal on September 7,<br />
2016. A. 3, 52.<br />
On December 9, 2016, Justice Thomas granted an extension of time to file the<br />
petition for a writ of certiorari to and including February 4, <strong>2017</strong> (a Saturday) in<br />
Application № 16A532. This petition was mailed on the following Monday, February<br />
6, <strong>2017</strong>, and it is therefore timely. See Rule 30.1.<br />
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).<br />
PROVISIONS INVOLVED<br />
The following statutes are involved in this case and are set out in the appendix:<br />
sections 610, 951, 956, 963, 1254, and 2072 of Title 28 of the United States Code.<br />
STATEMENT <strong>OF</strong> THE CASE<br />
Carlos Ramirez sued Bausch & Lomb, Inc., in Florida state court.<br />
1<br />
See A. 55. He<br />
alleged a claim under the Florida Civil Rights Act and a Florida common-law claim<br />
of negligent supervision, training, or retention. Bausch & Lomb removed to the<br />
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida<br />
2<br />
under<br />
1<br />
2<br />
№ 2010-CA-11240 (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. Ct., in and for Hillsborough County).<br />
№ 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW (Hon. Mary S. Scriven).
Change language