Bausch and Lomb_Opposition_2_RamirezWritofCert_2017-03-14

corrected brief on April 11, 2016, though it was deemed deficient as it was missing
page numbers. (Id.) Ramirez failed to submit his corrected appendix timely. (Id.)
On April 12, 2016, Ramirez mailed an "Unopposed Motion of Extraordinary
Circumstances," to attempt to "explain[ ] why the Appendix was not filed" timely.
(A.36-42, 52). In the motion, Ramirez stated that on April 11, 2016, he went to
FedEx/Kinkos to print his brief and appendix. (A.38-40). He stated that the
corrected brief printed successfully (A.38-40). However, the FedEx/Kinkos
employee allegedly printed the corrected appendix out of order and with pages
missing. (A.38-40). Ramirez went on to state that he did not realize that the Tampa
airport post office had changed its closing time from midnight to 10:00 PM, and he
claims he rushed there and mailed his corrected brief at 10:09 PM. (A.38-40).
In the motion, Ramirez stated that counsel for Bausch & Lomb did not
oppose his filing the appendix a day late — on April 12, 2016. (A.39). Ramirez did
not ask Bausch & Lomb's counsel for, and counsel did not offer, his agreement of
whether the situation constituted extraordinary circumstances or whether the
dismissed appeal should be reinstated; nor did Ramirez make any such
representation in the motion.4 (A.36-40). Nevertheless, Ramirez entitled his motion
"unopposed," and asked the lower court to allow him to file the appendix a day late
4 In fact, when Ramirez consulted Bausch & Lomb's counsel regarding his June 2, 2016, motion
to reinstate his appeal, Bausch & Lomb opposed the relief requested. (A.89).
7