RAMIREZ_Appendix_Writ_Certiorari_2_6_2017
Case 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW Document 189 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 2952 CARLOS RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION v. Case No: 8:10-cv-2003-T-35TGW BAUSCH & LOMB, INC., Defendant. / ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Dkt. 177); Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Causation, (Dkt. 183); and Plaintiff’s Response in opposition thereto. (Dkt. 188) In accordance with the Circuit Court’s mandate and upon consideration of all relevant filings, case law, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s renewed request for summary judgment. (Dkt. 183) I. BACKGROUND This case involves a claim that Defendant, Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (“B&L”), terminated Plaintiff, Carlos Ramirez (“Ramirez”), in violation of the Florida Whistleblower Act (“FWA”), Fla. Stat. § 448.102. (Dkt. 7-1) B&L moved for an entry of summary judgment in its favor on November 11, 2011. (Dkt. 78) This Court granted B&L’s Motion for Summary Judgment on August 10, 2012, finding that Ramirez had failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the FWA. (Dkt. 155) Ramirez appealed this Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. (Dkt. 159) On appeal, the Circuit Court vacated this Court’s Order and remanded the case, A. 5
Case 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW Document 189 Filed 04/02/15 Page 2 of 12 PageID 2953 directing the Court to “perform a new causation analysis.” (Dkt. 173 at P. 6; Dkt. 177) The Parties have filed supplemental memoranda addressing the issue of causation (Dkt. 183; 188), and B&L accordingly renews its request for an entry of summary judgment in its favor. (Dkt. 183) II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is appropriate when the movant can show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fennell v. Gilstrap, 559 F.3d 1212, 1216 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Welding Servs., Inc. v. Forman, 509 F.3d 1351, 1356 (11th Cir. 2007)). Which facts are material depends on the substantive law applicable to the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The moving party bears the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991). Evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Fennell, 559 F.3d at 1216 (citing Welding Servs., Inc., 509 F.3d at 1356). A moving party discharges its burden on a motion for summary judgment by showing or pointing out to the Court that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case. Denney v. City of Albany, 247 F.3d 1172, 1181 (11th Cir. 2001). When a moving party has discharged its burden, the non-moving party must then go beyond the pleadings, and by its own affidavits, or by depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Porter v. Ray, 461 F.3d 1315, 1321 (11th Cir. 2006). The party opposing a motion for summary judgment must rely on more than conclusory statements or allegations unsupported by facts. Evers v. Gen. A. 6 2
- Page 1 and 2: № ____________________ IN THE SUP
- Page 3 and 4: Case: 15-11914 Date (1075 Filed: of
- Page 5: Case 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW Document
- Page 9 and 10: Case 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW Document
- Page 11 and 12: Case 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW Document
- Page 13 and 14: Case 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW Document
- Page 15 and 16: Case 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW Document
- Page 17 and 18: Case 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW Document
- Page 19 and 20: Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 10/22/20
- Page 21 and 22: Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 10/22/20
- Page 23 and 24: Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 10/22/20
- Page 25 and 26: Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 10/22/20
- Page 27 and 28: Case: 15-11914 Date (649 Filed: of
- Page 29 and 30: § 610. Courts defined, 28 USCA §
- Page 31 and 32: § 956. Powers and duties of clerks
- Page 33 and 34: § 1254. Courts of appeals; certior
- Page 35 and 36: Case: 15-11914 Date (751 Filed: of
- Page 37 and 38: Case: 15-11914 Date (753 Filed: of
- Page 39 and 40: Case: 15-11914 Date (755 Filed: of
- Page 41 and 42: Case: 15-11914 Date (757 Filed: of
- Page 43 and 44: Case: 15-11914 Date (759 Filed: of
- Page 45 and 46: Case: 15-11914 Date (788 Filed: of
- Page 47 and 48: Case: 15-11914 Date (790 Filed: of
- Page 49 and 50: Selected docket entries for case 15
- Page 51 and 52: 11/18/2015 ORDER: Appellee’s moti
- Page 53 and 54: 04/20/2016 DIS−2CIV Notice to Cou
- Page 55 and 56: Case 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW Document
Case 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW Document 189 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 2952<br />
CARLOS <strong>RAMIREZ</strong>,<br />
Plaintiff,<br />
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT<br />
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA<br />
TAMPA DIVISION<br />
v. Case No: 8:10-cv-2003-T-35TGW<br />
BAUSCH & LOMB, INC.,<br />
Defendant.<br />
/<br />
ORDER<br />
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the mandate of the<br />
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Dkt. 177); Defendant’s<br />
Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Causation, (Dkt. 183); and Plaintiff’s Response<br />
in opposition thereto. (Dkt. 188) In accordance with the Circuit Court’s mandate and<br />
upon consideration of all relevant filings, case law, and being otherwise fully advised, the<br />
Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s renewed request for summary judgment. (Dkt. 183)<br />
I. BACKGROUND<br />
This case involves a claim that Defendant, Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (“B&L”),<br />
terminated Plaintiff, Carlos Ramirez (“Ramirez”), in violation of the Florida Whistleblower<br />
Act (“FWA”), Fla. Stat. § 448.102. (Dkt. 7-1) B&L moved for an entry of summary<br />
judgment in its favor on November 11, 2011. (Dkt. 78) This Court granted B&L’s Motion<br />
for Summary Judgment on August 10, 2012, finding that Ramirez had failed to establish<br />
a prima facie case of retaliation under the FWA. (Dkt. 155) Ramirez appealed this<br />
Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. (Dkt.<br />
159) On appeal, the Circuit Court vacated this Court’s Order and remanded the case,<br />
A. 5
Change language