No. 24-946

Olympic Collection, Inc., et al. v. Aklilu Yohannes

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-03-04
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: certiorari-review constitutional-claim due-process garnishment-writ interlocutory-order state-action
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2025-04-25
Related Cases: 24-833 (Vide)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether an interlocutory order and failure to meet Rule 10 considerations warrant certiorari review

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Whether Petitioner Akilu Yohannes’s (“Yohannes”) challenge to an interlocutory order provides a basis for certiorari. Wh e t h e r c e rti o r ari s h o ul d b e gr an te d w h e r e considerations governing review on certiorari under Rule 10 have not been met. The following questions for a conditional cross-petition of Respondents Olympic Collection, Inc., Farooq Ansari, Susan Cable, and Norman Martin (collectively “Olympic”), apply only if certiorari were to be granted. Whether Olympic is a private collection agency that is not a state actor for purposes of a due process claim. Whether an as-applied due process claim can be brought based on an alleged failure to follow a state statute. Whether this lawsuit should be dismissed if the sole remaining claim is dismissed. Whether the Court should grant certiorari on crosspetition to determine to answer the above questions.

Docket Entries

2025-04-28
Petition DENIED.
2025-04-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/25/2025.
2025-03-18
Waiver of right of respondent Aklilu Yohannes to respond filed.
2025-02-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 3, 2025)

Attorneys

Aklilu Yohannes
Aklilu Yohannes — Respondent
Aklilu Yohannes — Respondent
Olympic Collection, Inc.
Marc RosenbergLee, Smart, PS, Inc., Petitioner
Marc RosenbergLee, Smart, PS, Inc., Petitioner