Amici in support of plaintiff-appellant

Similar documents
Yong Li Appellant v. John Didio Appellee and Raytheon Company et. al. Appellees

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

2016 WL (U.S.) (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) Supreme Court of the United States.

Lawrence Walker v. Comm Social Security

Case: Document: 6 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pages: 6 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Winston Banks v. Court of Common Pleas FJD

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Judicial Court FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS NO. SJC-11958

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER

Supreme Court of the United States

Case: Document: Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2017. No United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond on Wednesday, the 31st day of March, 2004.

*** CAPITAL CASE *** No

DANTAN SALDAÑA, Plaintiff/Appellant, No. 2 CA-CV Filed July 21, 2017

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI

This Court properly reserved ruling on the issue of. survival of M.G.L. c. 151B claims in Alba v. Raytheon, 441

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0915n.06. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Second Circuit. Plaintiffs-Appellees. Defendants-Appellants. Plaintiffs-Appellees. Defendants-Appellants

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

In the Supreme Court of the United States

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Appellants-Plaintiffs, V. CASE NO Appellee-Defendant, Appellee-Intervenor-Defendant.

In The Supreme Court of the United States

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 9, 2008

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 14, 2009 Session

No. DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2007 MT 130

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No DANIEL BOCK, JR. PRESSLER & PRESSLER, LLP, Appellant

Docket No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Argued and Submitted on August 24, Counsel for Appellee: John Biehl (Carlsmith Ball Wichman Case & Ichiki), Saipan.

FILED State of California v. Little Sisters of the Poor, No

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT DEFEENDANT-APPELLEE S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

Case No IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit DAVID JOHN SLATER, WILDLIFE PERSONALITIES, LTD.,

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs January 26, 2016

No United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Working to Reform Marijuana Laws

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

I. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

Supreme Court of the United States

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No TS CURTIS RAY MCCARTY, JR. RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No.

No CHRISTOPHER DONELAN, SHERIFF OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL., Respondents. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs April 18, 2011

In The Supreme Court of the United States

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

Labor & Employment Alert An informational bulletin from the Labor & Employment Practice at Goodwin Procter

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Jury Trial Demanded

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON COMPLAINT

GREGORY F. MULLALLY, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV FILED

NO CA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI SASS MUNI-V, LLC, MIC-ROCKY, LLC, et al.,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. WILLIAM SEMPLE, et al.,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant,

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 07a0585n.06 Filed: August 14, Case No

Case 2:15-cv JAW Document 116 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

Supreme Court of the United States

Case 1:09-cv NMG Document 19 Filed 04/29/2009 Page 1 of 13. United States District Court District of Massachusetts MEMORANDUM & ORDER

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Case 3:15-cv GNS Document 12 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 482

FIORE v. WHITE, WARDEN, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit

Case: 2:14-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 98 Filed: 11/26/14 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 6215

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. No

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 112,599 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, COY MATHIS, Appellant.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Edward Peruta, et al,, Case No

No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. NAPOLEON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, et al., Respondents.

In the Supreme Court of the United States

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. JEFFREY F. SAYERS Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before HENRY, Chief Judge, TYMKOVICH and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

United States Court of Appeals

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D. C. Docket No CV-OC-10-GRJ. versus

[ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 2018] No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY Telephone:

No UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ALVIN M. THOMAS, Appellant

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No TS CURTIS RAY MCCARTY, JR. RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR REHEARING

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, MICHAEL PETRAMALA, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR

Supreme Court of the United States

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,392 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. DUSTIN J. MERRYFIELD, Appellant, and

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Submitted:September 23, 2013 Decided: December 8, 2014)

United States Court of Appeals

Case 3:08-cv HA Document 43 Filed 05/26/09 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 555

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 6:12-cv DAB. versus. No.

Follow this and additional works at:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 11, 2009 Session

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO CT SCT WILLIAM MICHAEL JORDAN STATE OF MISSISSIPPI SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY

NO IN THE. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit PETITIONERS REPLY

Case No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHELLE FLANAGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Before: GRABER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and MARBLEY, * District Judge.

Transcription:

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FAR NO. 17039 Yong Li, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Raytheon Company, and others Defendants - Appellees. IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT S APPLICATION FOR FURTHER APPELLATE REVIEW JOHN S. MARSHALL S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT; JOHN S. MARSHALL S AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT S FAR APPLICATION John S. Marshall, Ex-Board of the Boston Branch of NAACP, Principal, Empowerment thru Self Help CONSULTANTS 70 Saint Botolph Street Suite 819, Boston, MA. 02116 Amici in support of plaintiff-appellant 1

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FAR NO. 17039 Yong Li, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Raytheon Company, and others Defendants - Appellees. JOHN S. MARSHALL S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF Pursuant to Mass. R.A.P. Rule 17, amici curia John Marshall, the Principal in Empowerment thru Self Help / CONSULTANTS hereby respectfully request to leave to file the accompanying brief of amicus of curiae brief. This brief is submitted in support of the Application for Further Appellate Review. Plaintiff-Appellant Yong Li has consented the filing of this brief. As set forth in the accompanying brief, the amic is affected by the due process and the equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and the state constitutional due process rights, and has a deep interest in their proper interpretation and application. The amic is greatly concerned that the Massachusetts Appeal Court s error on the case statute, which resulted in a ruling of appellate sua sponte dismissal under Mass. R. Civ. P. Rule 12 (b) (6), which in turn deprived 2

appellant Yong Li of due process rights. There was no hearing, no opportunity to amend complaint, and no adversarial process. Moreover, Yong Li was deprived of right to appeal in the Appeal Court s level. Any further process in the Supreme Court would not be a matter of right. The trick was that the Appeal Court did not identify the dismissal as sua sponte, because they assumed the issue of Rule 12(b)(6) had been raised in the low court, so that they applied case law Conant v. Sherwin L. Kantrovitz, P.C., 29 Mass. App. Ct. 998, 998 (1990) to dismiss the appellant s discrimination claims against Raytheon. In fact, the issue of Rule 12(b)(6) had never been raised. Without such assumption, the Appeal Court should remand the case back to the low court for further process, or should set up a precedent with respect to the sua sponte dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) before dismissing this case. Accordingly, the amici respectfully requests to leave to file the accompanying amicus curiae brief in support of the Application for Further Appellate Review ( FAR ). Respectfully submitted, John S. Marshall, Ex-Board of the Boston Branch of NAACP, Principal, Empowerment thru Self Help CONSULTANTS 70 Saint Botolph Street Suite 819, Boston, MA. 02116 Date: August 19, 2008 Amici in support of plaintiff-appellant 3

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FAR NO. 17039 Yong Li, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Raytheon Company, and others Defendants - Appellees. AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF JOHN S. MARSHALL IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT STATEMENT OF INTERESET OF AMICI CURIA The amici, John S. Marshall is a Boston resident, US citizen. He was elected to and served on the board of the Boston Branch NAACP in the 1970s, while he was a Ph.D candidate at Brandeis University, and had experienced injustice and was involved struggle for equality, civil rights and human rights. The amici is affected by the Bill of Rights, including the due process and the equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Massachusetts constitutional due process rights, and has a deep interest in their proper interpretation and application. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF INTERESET OF AMICI CURIA TABLE OF CONTENTS STATUES AND REGULATION i ii iii STATEMENT OF PRIOR PROCEEDING 1 WHY FURTHER APPELLATE REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Acker v. Chevira, 934 P.2d 816, 188 Ariz. 252, 239 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 22 (Ariz.App.Div.1 03/20/1997)... 3 Chute v. Walker, 281 F.3d 314, 319 (1st Cir. 2002)... 3 Conant v. Sherwin L. Kantrovitz, P.C., 29 Mass. App. Ct. 998, 998 (1990). 1, 2 Farese v. Scherer 342 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 08/19/2003)... 3 Franklin v. Oregon State Welfare Division, 662 F.2d 1337, 1340-41 (9th Cir. 1981)... 3 Futura Dev. of P.R., Inc. v. Estado Libre Asociado de P.R., 144 F.3d 7, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1998)... 3 Hill v. Zimmerer, 839 P.2d 977, 981 (Wyo. 1992)... 3 Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989)... 3 Jenkins v. Miller, 2008 WY 45, 180 P.3d 925 (Wyo. 04/14/2008)... 3 Lewis v. New York, 547 F.2d 4, 6 (2d Cir. 1976)... 3 ii

Mayrides v. Franklin Cty.Prosecutor s Office (1991), 71 Ohio App.3d 381, 384... 3 Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997)... 3 Ricketts v. Midwest Nat'l Bank, 874 F.2d 1177, 1184 (7th Cir. 1989)... 3 Tingler v. Marshall, 716 F.2d 1109, 1111-12 (6th Cir. 1983)... 3 Torrey v. Twiford, 713 P.2d 1160 (Wyo. 1986)... 3 Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-62 (9th Cir. 1981)... 3 STATUES AND REGULATION M.G.L. 151B. 1 SJC Rule 3:09.. 2 Canon 3(B)(6) 2 ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12201 12213. 3 iii

STATEMENT OF PRIOR PROCEEDING The amici agree with the major points set forth in the Statement of Prior Proceedings of Plaintiff-Appellant Yong Li ( Li ) and the Defendants-Appellees Raytheon et al. ( Raytheon ). The amici, however, make some supplemental points. The Appellant was a senior software engineer and had worked in Raytheon s Marlborough facility for seven (7) years. In 2004, she was subjected to alleged racial discrimination, harassment, illegal interrogation in Raytheon, and started suffering posttraumatic stress disorder, and became long-term disabled. She filed discrimination and retaliation lawsuit under M.G.L. 151B to the Middlesex Superior Court. The appellant could not find attorney due to her severe mental condition which caused communication problem. She, as a pro se, went through the MCAD (Massachusetts Commission against Discrimination), the Middlesex Superior Court, and the Appeal Court. The process for the appellant went through was not efficient compare to a normal healthy complainant. The Superior Court dismissed Li s discrimination claims against Raytheon for a prior pending action in federal court. On appeal, the Massachusetts Appeal Court found that the Superior Court erred in relying on Rule 12(b)(9). However, the Appeal Court did not remand the case back, instead, they affirmed the dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Appeal Court resembled any valid ground on which the motion should have been allowed, Conant v. Sherwin L. Kantrovitz, P.C., 29 Mass. App. Ct. 998, 998 (1990). Apparently, the Appeal Court assumed that the issue of Rule 12(b)(6) had had been raised in the low court. There was no notice, no hearing, no opportunity to amend the complaint, and no opportunity to get response from the parties. 1

Li filed Petition for Rehearing timely, she specifically pointed out that the issue of Rule 12(b)(6) had never been raised, briefed, or argued. However, the Petition for Rehearing was denied. Later, Li s FAR Application was denied in the SJC. WHY FURTHER APPELLATE REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED Yong Li v. Raytheon Company merits further appellate review because the case involves four substantial reasons impact on fairness and justice. The first reason is that the Appeal Court made mis-assumption in violation of the SJC Rule 3:09 Code of Judicial Conduct, and Canon 3B(2) judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. The Appeal Court erred by relying on Conant v. Sherwin L. Kantrovitz, P.C., 29 Mass. App. Ct. 998, 998 (1990). Apparently, the Appeal Court assumed that the issue of Rule 12(b)(6) had been raised in the low court. This error is undisputed. The appellant Yong Li had pointed this error in her Petition for Rehearing and her Application for Further Appellate Review. The Court s failure to correct this error is against fairness and justice, and will result in a miscarriage of justice. Further, the Massachusetts appellant court had no occasion to pass judgment on sua sponte dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Without establishing a case law, the court deprived Li of her due process by entering sua sponte dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) in violation of Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment rights. Third, Appeal Court s ruling, if subjected to a sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim without providing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint, was conflicted with the authoritative decisions of the Supreme Courts in Ohio, Wyoming, and Arizona, and the authoritative decisions of United States Courts of Appeals for First, Second, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh circuits on the same issue., such dismissals are erroneous unless the parties have been afforded 2

notice and an opportunity to amend the complaint or otherwise respond. Chute v. Walker, 281 F.3d 314, 319 (1st Cir. 2002) ; Lewis v. New York, 547 F.2d 4, 6 (2d Cir. 1976) ; Tingler v. Marshall, 716 F.2d 1109, 1111-12 (6th Cir. 1983), and Ricketts v. Midwest Nat'l Bank, 874 F.2d 1177, 1184 (7th Cir. 1989)) ; Franklin v. Oregon State Welfare Division, 662 F.2d 1337, 1340-41 (9th Cir. 1981) (citations omitted); see also Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989) and Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-62 (9th Cir. 1981) (citations omitted). Farese v. Scherer 342 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 08/19/2003) (citations omitted); Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted); The Supreme Courts of Ohio, Wyoming, and Arizona had adopted the opinions of federal courts: a sua sponte dismissal without notice to the parties is fundamentally unfair to litigants. Mayrides v. Franklin Cty.Prosecutor s Office (1991), 71 Ohio App.3d 381, 384; Jenkins v. Miller, 2008 WY 45, 180 P.3d 925 (Wyo. 04/14/2008), Torrey v. Twiford, 713 P.2d 1160 (Wyo. 1986) (citations omitted); See Hill v. Zimmerer, 839 P.2d 977, 981 (Wyo. 1992) (citations omitted); Acker v. Chevira, 934 P.2d 816, 188 Ariz. 252, 239 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 22 (Ariz.App.Div.1 03/20/1997) (citations omitted). Final, concerning the plaintiff-appellant is a mental disabled pro se with English not as her first language, she could not adequately write her complaint at that time, the depriving of her opportunity to amend the complaint is extraordinarily imprudent in violation of American Disability Act, 42 U.S.C. 12201 12213.. For the foregoing reasons, the Application for Further Appellate Review should be granted. Respectfully submitted, 3

John S. Marshall, Principal Empowerment thru Self Help CONSULTANTS 70 Saint Botolph Street, Suite 819, Boston, MA. 02116 Date: August 19, 2008 Amici in support of plaintiff-appellant Certificate Service Service was made upon counsel for each other party by first mail class in the counsel office, addressed as follow: Mr. Michael Bernardo, Conn Kavanaugh Rosenthal, Peisch & Ford, LLP, 10 Post Office Square, 4 th Floor, Boston, MA 02109 Mr. Erin M. Mullen, Long & Leahy 100 Summer Street, 11 th Floor, Boston, MA 02110 Ms. Yong Li -- -- On, /s/ ( Amici John Marshall) 4