Jason Hunter Bell v. Macy's Corporation Services, et al.

The issue is if the “Plaintiff timely Opted out of Arbitration. 1A. Are records/software over 7 years old that are oudated and not currently i in use, can be used by the Defendant’s to determine whether the Plaintiff, timely “Opted Out of Arbitration” without being authenticated, are they reliable? IB. Issue Plaintiff provided, an affidavit with bank statement with documentation from Macy’s Finace department/payroll division which corroborated evidence that start date was August 01,2020 and that he timely “Opted Out of Arbitration”

The issue the Clerk of Court entered a motion of default against Defendant’s for not responding to the court summons in a timely manner, Plaintiff denied due process (SEE DOCKT# 26,27,28).

Issue the District Court dismissed Plaintiff MOTION OF DEFAULT against the Defendant. (SEE DOCKET#30,3l,32) Plaintiff aggrieved by court actions.

Issue the Plaintiff filed a motion of default against the Defendant’s Macy’s, Judge Ruiz dismissed the motion and reset the deadline date. This.action by the court aggrieved the Plaintiff and denied Plaintiff due process, once again 5, Issue the Defendant’s were allowed to move forward in the case after the Clerk of Court enter a motion of default against the Defendant for not being timely? Question did the district court error?

The District Court error when Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff “Amended Complaint” as order by Judge Ruiz. (SEE DOCKET# 40)

Question was it correct to allow Defendant to move forward without a Notice of Appearance, after the motion of default which later aggrieved the Plaintiff by this action which led to sanction by the court and denide Plaintiff due process.

The Court error when Defendant refused to participate twice in a joint schedule status conference ordered by Judge Ruiz and was allowed to move forward in this matter. Question was did the court have an inclination of favoritism in this matter.

Whether District Court error when it held an “ ex parte” conference with only the Defendant Council present and Judge Ruiz. Plaintiff was aggrieved and denied due process by the District Court.

That the Plaintiff has been negatively impacted by the District Court order, that was flawed and deprived Plaintiff of due process. (SEE DOCKET# 75) order on motion to compel by the Defendant. 11. Whether Bell meet the Justiciability Doctrine Requirement and has standing as set forth by the Supreme Court?

Whether Bell established an adversarial relationship when employed by Macy’s in a hostile workplace, EEOC complaint against the Defendant’s and also litigation in the court shows that Bell has been aggrieved.

Question if Bell had standing would he meet the Supreme Court exception, United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U S. 36 (1950)

Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits the jurisdiction of Federal Court cases and controveries, the Supreme Court made an exception to “Mootness Doctrine” that apply to Bell case. “United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950)”

Whether Bell case that was dismissed by the Appeal Court on March 17, 2021, for lack ofjurisdiction, if the Appeal Court made an error, would that make the decision/judgment flawed. What would be status of Bell case?

Bell injured his foot when ordered by suppervisor Rhodes to climb a ladder to change lights in the ceiling. Bell is disable in accordance to the ADA of 1990 as Amended. We have causal and a concrete injury cause by the Defendant 17. The Appeal Court errored in it’s order dated March 17, 2021, it listed one of the Defendant’s as a Ramond C. Vega III through out the order. Question is the Appeal order executable or valid?

Plaintiff ask if the Appeal order justifiable or executable since it’s flawed?

That if the Defendant/Appellees retains the power to resume the practice or refile at any time, a motion to compel in the federal court may deem the case “nonmoot ”. Is the case still a live controversy?