No. 19-5748

Seth Mitchell v. Macy's, Inc., et al.

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2019-08-29
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: civil-procedure civil-rights denial-of-motion disability-accommodation due-process employment-discrimination erisa federal-rules-of-civil-procedure first-amendment hipaa magistrate-judge motion-to-amend timeliness title-vii
Key Terms:
ERISA EmploymentDiscrimina HealthPrivacy
Latest Conference: 2020-01-10 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

When, if ever, can a magistrate judge intentionally violate FRCP 15(a)(1)(B) in denying a timely motion to amend a complaint?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. When, if ever, can a magistrate judge assigned to handle nondispositive matters in a Federal lawsuit intentionally violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) in the unjust denial of a good faith and timely filed Motion to amend a meritorious complaint? 2. When, if ever, can a magistrate judge assigned to handle nondispositive matters in a Federal lawsuit intentionally violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b) by illegally denying a Motion for partial summary judgment, when that good faith and timely -filed Rule 56(b) Motion was addressed to the District Judge assigned to the Case and not to that wrongdoing magistrate judge? 8. When, if ever, can a District Judge assigned to a Federal lawsuit dismiss clearly-articulated meritorious Claims for grievous sexual harassment and institutionalized hostile work environment as per Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL’) [New York State Executive _ Law Article 15], concluding callously that such Claims “.merely amount to petty, slight, or trivial inconveniences.”? 4. When, if ever, can-a District Judge assigned to a Federal lawsuit dismiss a clearly-articulated meritorious Claim for failure to provide for disability accommodation under The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 / Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act of 2008, when such a clearly — articulated Claim includes formal doctor attestation that said reasonable accommodation is medically necessary? 5. When, if ever, can a employee’s employer — sponsored health insurer intentionally violate HIPAA and 45 CFR §164.530(c) by transmitting the worker’s detailed and private medical information to his employer with the goal of tortuously interfering with said employee’s employment contract to induce illegal employment separation? 6. When, if ever, can a District Judge assigned to a Federal lawsuit completely ignore a meritorious and clearly — articulated Claim for Breach of [employer/union employment] Contract, when that {employer/union] Contract is submitted as evidence to the Court? 7. When if ever, can an employer and its fiduciaries violate ERISA 502(a) regarding illicit denials of well-pled emergency hardship withdrawal requests from a worker’s 401k account with that employer for issues relating to financial emergency, resulting in an employee’s forced eviction from his current residence due entirely to such illegal denials? How does the law define financial emergency within the context of ERISA? . 8. When, if ever, can an employer engage in retaliatory discharge against an employee for asserting his rights under ERISA 502(a) regarding a good faith emergency hardship withdrawal request for reasons of financial emergency? 9. Does a union breach duties of fair representation to a union member under the National Labor Relations Act when it “steps into the shoes of the employee” and settles an employment controversy with the employer, where any settlement benefit does not get passed on to the aggrieved worker? 10.When an employee submits to Court irrefutable evidence that he has fully exhausted his administrative remedies with regards to an ERISA 502(a) Claim pursuant to c, when, if ever, can a District Judge assigned to the case dismiss said meritorious Claim by erroneously concluding that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies? 11.When, if ever, can a United States Court of Appeals ignore all undeniable facts and relevant Federal law, thereby dismissing before . any appearances and briefings a good faith Appeal, particularly when the Appellant has certified that without being granted the relief requested, He will continue to suffer extreme and unnecessary personal medical and financial emergencies? 12.When do the actions of a Federal judicial employee in the course of their employment depart so far from the norm in all that is ethical, compassionate, fair, unbiased, and legal as to generate a meritorious Fede

Docket Entries

2020-01-13
Rehearing DENIED.
2019-12-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-11-25
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2019-11-04
Petition DENIED.
2019-10-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/1/2019.
2019-09-24
Waiver of right of respondents Cigna Corporation and Nicole Jones, Esq. to respond filed.
2019-09-20
Waiver of right of respondents Local 3 United Storeworkers, RWDSU/UFCW, AFL-CIO to respond filed.
2019-09-18
Waiver of right of respondents Macy's, Inc., Bloomingdale's, Inc. et al. to respond filed.
2019-09-11
Waiver of right of respondents Bank of America Corporation and Terrence P. Laughlin to respond filed.
2019-08-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 30, 2019)
2019-06-19
Application (18A1323) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until August 26, 2019.
2019-06-13
Application (18A1323) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 27, 2019 to August 26, 2019, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.

Attorneys

Bank of America Corporation and Terrence P. Laughlin
Philip GoldsteinMcGuireWoods LLP, Respondent
Cigna Corporation and Nicole Jones, Esq.
Jeremy P. BlumenfeldMorgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP, Respondent
Local 3 United Storeworkers, RWDSU/UFCW, AFL-CIO
Eugene G. EisnerEisner & Dictor, P.C., Respondent
Macy's, Inc., Bloomingdale's, Inc. et al.
Steven GerberSchoeman Updike Kaufman & Gerber, LLP, Respondent
Seth Mitchell
Seth Mitchell — Petitioner