Aura Moody v. National Football League
AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity DueProcess Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Whether the lower courts properly followed statutory and constitutional requirements in dismissing the complaint
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The questions presented below are essential and deserve the United States Supreme Court’s attention ‘now. It gives this Court an opportunity to decide important questions of federal law regarding statutory standing doctrine in the context ofa claim that is based on constitutional rights violations. The questions for this Court are: 1. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURTS DISMISSAL | OF THE COMPLAINT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT'S AFFIRMATION OF SAME DEMONSTRATED THE FAILURE OF THE COURTS TO PROPERLY FOLLOW THE SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL MANDATE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 504 OF ; THE REHABILITATION ACT, THE AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT, THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE XIV AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, AS WELL AS OTHER APPLICABLE STATUTES, DESPITE THE PRESENCE IN THE RECORD OF A MULTITUDE OF VIOLATIONS OF THE SUBJECT STATUTES BY | RESPONDENT IN THIS MATTER? 2. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION TO REMOVE PETITIONER'S NAME FROM THE . CAPTION OF THE CASE AND AS A PARTY IN INTEREST WAS WARRANTED, IN ADDITION TO PREJUDICING PETITIONER’S RIGHTS IN THIS MATTER, DESPITE THE PRESENCE IN THE RECORD OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION VIOLATIONS BY RESPONDENT? WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT FOLLOWED . THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND . COURT’S LOCAL RULES TO REMOVE ii PETITIONER'S NAME FROM THE AMENDED COMPLAINT? WHETHER THIS ISSUE WAS PROPERLY REVIEWED AND ADDRESSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT? 3. WHETHER MAIN PLAINTIFF JULIAN MOODY'S AND PETITIONER’S CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY NOT GIVING THEM NOTICE PRIOR TO OR AFTER THE REMOVAL OF PETITIONER'S NAME FROM THE CAPTION OF THE CASE AND AS A PARTY IN INTEREST BY THE DISTRICT COURT? WHETHER THIS ISSUE WAS PROPERLY REVIEWED AND ADDRESSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT? 4. WHETHER PETITIONER CEASED TO BE A REPRESENTATIVE PARTY WITH STANDING TO APPEAL DESPITE HER CONTINUED RIGHTS ASA PARTY IN INTEREST IN THIS ACTION, | CONSIDERING THAT SHE NEVER RESCINDED HER RIGHTS AS A PLAINTIFF? WHETHER THIS ISSUE WAS PROPERLY REVIEWED AND ADDRESSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT? , 5. WHETHER PETITIONER'S OWN INTEGRAL { CLAIMS, ALTHOUGH DIFFERENT FROM MAIN PLAINTIFF JULIAN MOODY, ARE MERITORIOUS AND WARRANTED REVIEW BY A JURY FOR AN ; ADJUDICATION OF THIS CASE ON THE MERITS? WHETHER THIS ISSUE WAS PROPERLY REVIEWED AND ADDRESSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT? . 6. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISMISSAL OF PETITIONER'S OWN CLAIMS WITHOUT ; | | | ni AFFORDING HER A HEARING ON THE DISPUTED ISSUES OF FACTS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ; LEGALLY SUBMITTED TO A JURY FOR AN ADJUDICATION OF THIS CASE ON THE MERITS : WAS WARRANTED? WHETHER THE ISSUE WAS , PROPERLY REVIEWED AND ADDRESSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT? 7. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT DEPARTED FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW WHEN THE MATTER WAS SETTLED WITH MAIN PLAINTIFF JULIAN MOODY BASED ON TRICKERY MISINFORMATION AND FAILURE TO HONOR THE PRE-REQUISITE CONDITIONS TO THE MEDIATION, AND THE DISTRICT COURT’S FAILED TO VACATE THE SETTLEMENT DESPITE : PROPER AND TIMELY NOTIFICATION BY PETITIONER OF THE IRREGULARITIES DURING NEGOTIATION THAT LED TO THE UNFAIR AND BAD FAITH SETTLEMENT? WHETHER THIS ISSUE ‘ WAS PROPERLY REVIEWED AND ADDRESSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT? 8. WHETHER PETITIONER HAS STANDING TO | APPEAL THE ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT , AND CIRCUIT COURT AND IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF IN THIS CASE IN LIGHT OF THE LOWER COURTS’ FAILURE TO REVIEW AND ADDRESS THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ON HER BEHALF IN THIS MATTER? 9. WHETHER RESPONDENT'S UNTIMELY FILING OF ITS BRIEF WITHOUT A PRIOR CONSENSUAL EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AND RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO SERVE PETITIONER WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND NOTICE OF iv APPEARANCE CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE AND COURT’S LOCAL RULES, IN ADDITION TO PREJUDICING PETITIONER’S RIGHTS IN THIS MATTER? WHETHER THIS ISSUE WAS PROPERLY REVIEWED AND ADDRESSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT? 10. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURTS AND THE CIRCUIT C