No. 20-1591

Ashwin Khobragade v. Covidien LP

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-05-17
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: civil-procedure civil-rights due-process employment employment-law federal-rules fraud qualified-immunity rico stare-decisis white-collar-litigation
Key Terms:
ERISA
Latest Conference: 2021-09-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is the Defendant Covidien LP entitled to the absolute qualified immunity?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : QUESTIONS | 1. Is the Defendant Covidien LP entitled to the absolute qualified immunity? Which is luring, hiding, lying, cheating, stealing, RICO and . ' committing fraud to and from the Govt. of __United States and the Plaintiff (white collar) simultaneously, while making plaintiff work in Mexico illegally, while reporting plaintiff | on paper, to be a US Worker working in USA; and as a result, simultaneously suppressing the U.S. White Collar Citizen’s hiring at 100% of the prevalent salary. Did the District Court Err? Did the Ninth Circuit Courts Err? . 2. Is it okay for the defendant employer Covidien LP to repeatedly relentlessly obsessively compulsively break the one and only law (available to a prior white collar employee), that resulted in numerous irreparable losses of significant proportion (ie. a Total of 140+ torturous encounters on the plaintiff) deliberately causing and resulting in overwhelmingly catastrophic & financially disastrous position (defendant stealing everything, leaving only one suitcase) for the . . Plaintiff, Is the defendant entitled to absolute qualified immunity or should the District Courts have deter the Defendant by sanctions, and did the Southern California District Court Err? Did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Err? 3. Most Importantly, The Supreme Court of the United States, stare decisis ruling was disrespectingly disregarded and in addition a total of 5 different Court of Appeals (preciously : Qnd Circuit, 5th Circuit, 6th Circuit, 9% Circuit and 11 Circuit) stare decisis ruling in 11+ different cases were in addition also disregarded, and further more Federal Rule of : Civil Procedure, Rule 56, 2010 amendment subdivision (e) was further more ; disrespectingly disregarded ie. In : Hierarchical and precedential Order, that ; substantially affects a rule of national , application in which there is an overriding need for national uniformity, did the Southern California District Court Err? Did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Err? iii .

Docket Entries

2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-06-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-06-16
Waiver of right of respondent Covidien LP to respond filed.
2021-05-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 16, 2021)

Attorneys

Ashwin Khobragade
Ashwin K. Khobragade — Petitioner
Ashwin K. Khobragade — Petitioner
Covidien LP
Denise M. ViscontiLittler Mendelson P.C., Respondent
Denise M. ViscontiLittler Mendelson P.C., Respondent