Israel Romero v. Charter Communications, Inc., et al.

This case presents a clear, recognized, and intractable opportunity for this Court when courts apply double standard in a class of one in violation of Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Ames v. Ohio Dept, of Youth Services, 605 U.S. 303 (2025), this Court ruled that the used of double standards violate the Equal Protection Clause of the XIV Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000), this Court held that the Equal Protection Clause gives rise to a cause of action on behalf of a “class of one” where the plaintiff does not allege membership in a class or group, but alleges that he has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for such a treatment. In Dupree v. Younger, 598 U.S. 729 (2023), this Court ruled that decisions on motions for summary judgment are appealable immediately; and, in Cox v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975), this Court held that a judgment can be considered “final” for review purposes if the federal issue is conclusive and a delay in review would erode a federal right (in this case, the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment after initial discovery was executed. At the hearing, the circuit judge stated to Petitioner, “I appreciate all of your arguments and your brief, and actually stating the law as far as Kitchen Planners [2023], which you included in your brief. So I applaud you in that regard”(Transcript p. 29 lines 21-24) But the judge made the decision against Petitioner applying a dead rule when it comes to summary judgment: “incomplete discovery” on Doe ex rel Doe v. Batson,345 S.C.316 (2001), that was overruled by Dawkins v. Fields, 354 S.C. 58 (2003) in clear “double standard” violating Petitioner’s Equal Protection clause right. On appeal, the S.C. Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal immediately without allowing Petitioner to file his Initial Brief as mandated by Rule 208, S.C. Appellate Procedures, in violation of Petitioner’s Due Process right. The Supreme Court of South Carolina denied certiorari without giving time to Petitioner to file for Rehearing, affirming the lower courts violations of Petitioner’s Constitutional rights, and this case should be reviewed. See Kitchen Planners v. Friedman, 440 S.C. 456 (2023). The question presented is: Whether South Carolina courts erred in applying “double standard” in a “class of one” in violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (i)