Bausch and Lomb_Opposition_2_RamirezWritofCert_2017-03-14
STATEMENT OF THE CASE Carlos Ramirez sued Bausch & Lomb, Inc., in Florida state court.2 (A.55). Bausch & Lomb removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida3 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction in September 2010. (A.55). After removal, Ramirez amended his complaint and proceeded exclusively under Florida's Private Whistleblower Act, Fla. Stat. § 448.101 et seq. (Id.). Ramirez was represented by counsel at all times during the proceedings before the district court. (A.55-68). The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Bausch & Lomb on August 10, 2012, and Ramirez, proceeding pro se, timely filed a notice of appeal with the Eleventh Circuit, in Case No. 12-14669-E. (A.65, 66). During that appeal, Ramirez failed to timely file record excerpts, and his appeal was dismissed on December 17, 2013. (R.A.1, 2). On December 31, 2013, Rsmirez submitted a motion to reinstate the appeal, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rules 42-2 and 42-3, claiming that a clerk at the district court had unintentionally misled him to believe that the record excerpts would be forwarded to the Eleventh Circuit by the district court. (R.A.3-10). The motion was granted and the appeal was reinstated on February 11, 2014. (R.A.11-12). The Eleventh Circuit later vacated the summary judgment order and remanded for further proceedings. (A.17-25). 2 Case No. 2010-CA-11240 (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. Ct., in and for Hillsborough County). 3 Case No. 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW (Hon. Mary S. Scriven). 5
After remand, the district court again entered summary judgment in favor of Bausch & Lomb on April 3, 2015. (A.4). Ramirez appealed again, pro se, on April 30, 2015. (A.53-54). As stated in the Petition (p. 3), Ramirez represented throughout the appeal that he had an unstable housing situation and that his access to computers was limited to the hours of operation for the public library system. (e.g., A.70). Ramirez received mail through general delivery at the local post office (A.3). Ramirez sometimes did not timely retrieve documents sent to him by the court. (e.g., Petitioner's Motion for Extension of February 11, 2016, p. 5, R.A.13-20). In September 2015, after receiving three extensions of time, Ramirez filed an initial brief and appendix. (A.48-49). Bausch & Lomb filed a response brief along with a motion to strike portions of Ramirez's brief and appendix, which included more than sixty pages of material not contained in the record on appeal. (A.50, 74-86). On January 29, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit struck Ramirez's brief and appendix in their entirety, along with Bausch & Lomb's brief, and directed Ramirez to file a corrected brief and appendix within 30 days. (A.26-27, 50-51). Ramirez sought and received two subsequent extensions of time, and, almost a year after Ramirez filed his notice of appeal, Ramirez's corrected initial brief and corrected appendix were due on April 11, 2016. (A.51). Ramirez submitted his 6
- Page 1 and 2: Ogletree Deakins Karen M. Morinelli
- Page 3 and 4: QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. D o Federal
- Page 5 and 6: QUESTIONS PRESENTEDi TABLE OF CONTE
- Page 7 and 8: Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
- Page 9 and 10: JURISDICTION Ramirez's Petition for
- Page 11: STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND RULES INVO
- Page 15 and 16: and to "find that the circumstances
- Page 17 and 18: On November 21, 2016, Ramirez sough
- Page 19 and 20: filing by either party hence, the a
- Page 21 and 22: 2587, 542 U.S. 367, 381 (2004) (cit
- Page 23 and 24: F.3d 1337, 1341 n.2 (11th Cir. 2011
- Page 25 and 26: Simply calling a document a motion
- Page 27 and 28: motion to set aside the dismissal a
- Page 29 and 30: (Petition, p. 11). Nevertheless, th
- Page 31 and 32: CONCLUSION AND RELIEF SOUGHT For al
- Page 33 and 34: NO. 16-7880 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
- Page 35 and 36: Dated March 13, 2017. Respectfully
- Page 37 and 38: Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 12/17/20
- Page 39 and 40: R.A. 4 Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 0
- Page 41 and 42: P A Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 01/0
- Page 43 and 44: PA R Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 01/
- Page 45 and 46: D A 1 A Case: 12-14679 Date Filed:
- Page 47 and 48: Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 02/11/20
- Page 49 and 50: Case: 15-11914 Date Filed: 02/16/20
- Page 51 and 52: Case: 15-11914 Date Filed: 02/16/20
- Page 53 and 54: Qase: 15-11914 IDAte [CASE: 15-1191
- Page 55 and 56: 'RES UNITED STATES 1 POSTAL SERVICF
- Page 57 and 58: The order of the United States Cour
- Page 59 and 60: A No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UN
- Page 61 and 62: 1) A ')4 Rule 31-2. Briefs and Appe
STATEMENT OF THE CASE<br />
Carlos Ramirez sued <strong>Bausch</strong> & <strong>Lomb</strong>, Inc., in Florida state court.2 (A.55).<br />
<strong>Bausch</strong> & <strong>Lomb</strong> removed the case to the United States District Court for the<br />
Middle District of Florida3 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction in September 2010.<br />
(A.55). After removal, Ramirez amended his complaint <strong>and</strong> proceeded exclusively<br />
under Florida's Private Whistleblower Act, Fla. Stat. § 448.101 et seq. (Id.).<br />
Ramirez was represented by counsel at all times during the proceedings before the<br />
district court. (A.55-68).<br />
The district court entered summary judgment in favor of <strong>Bausch</strong> & <strong>Lomb</strong> on<br />
August 10, 2012, <strong>and</strong> Ramirez, proceeding pro se, timely filed a notice of appeal<br />
with the Eleventh Circuit, in Case No. 12-<strong>14</strong>669-E. (A.65, 66). During that appeal,<br />
Ramirez failed to timely file record excerpts, <strong>and</strong> his appeal was dismissed on<br />
December 17, 2013. (R.A.1, 2). On December 31, 2013, Rsmirez submitted a<br />
motion to reinstate the appeal, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rules 42-2 <strong>and</strong> 42-3,<br />
claiming that a clerk at the district court had unintentionally misled him to believe<br />
that the record excerpts would be forwarded to the Eleventh Circuit by the district<br />
court. (R.A.3-10). The motion was granted <strong>and</strong> the appeal was reinstated on<br />
February 11, 20<strong>14</strong>. (R.A.11-12). The Eleventh Circuit later vacated the summary<br />
judgment order <strong>and</strong> rem<strong>and</strong>ed for further proceedings. (A.17-25).<br />
2 Case No. 2010-CA-11240 (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. Ct., in <strong>and</strong> for Hillsborough County).<br />
3 Case No. 8:10-cv-020<strong>03</strong>-MSS-TGW (Hon. Mary S. Scriven).<br />
5
Change language