No. 23-394

Thurayyah Z. Richardson v. The Procter and Gamble Company, et al.

Lower Court: New York
Docketed: 2023-10-13
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: abuse-of-discretion appellate-review civil-procedure constitutional-rights due-process fifth-amendment fourteenth-amendment judicial-discretion material-facts summary-judgment
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2024-01-05
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Where a trial court resolving summary judgment denies due process

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Where a trial court deciding summary judgment resolves genuine issues of disputed material fact adversely to Plaintiff instead of ruling on the law, has the Plaintiff been denied the due process of law in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution? 2. Where an appellate court upholds a grant of summary judgment, finding that the unverified, unsworn complaint is a judicial admission binding on the Plaintiff, which is opposite the law and the applicable binding precedent, has Plaintiff been denied the due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution by an abuse of discretion? 3. Where an appellate court decides a case partially upon a plainly incorrect assertion that an issue (that the contract was oral) was not raised until summary judgment, but the record is plain and incontrovertible that the issue was raised in discovery months earlier, did the plain error deny Plaintiff the due process of law in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by a clear error? 4. Where a Plaintiff consented to a specific use of her image on a product box for U.S. stores over a specific period of time, does the single publication rule apply to bar recovery for use of the image on the box for internet advertising in all countries for all time? ii II. LIST OF ALL PROCEEDINGS This action has no

Docket Entries

2024-01-08
Petition DENIED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2023-11-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2024.
2023-11-28
2023-11-13
Brief of respondents The Proctor and Gamble Company, et al. in opposition filed.
2023-08-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 13, 2023)

Attorneys

The Proctor and Gamble Company, et al.
Robert S. FriedmanSheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Respondent
Robert S. FriedmanSheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Respondent
Thurayyah Richardson
Roger Keith MarionMarion & Allen, P.C., Petitioner
Roger Keith MarionMarion & Allen, P.C., Petitioner