Efrain Areizaga v. TForce Freight, Incorporated, et al.

Did the United States Court of Appeals sanctioned the decision of the District Court, where the District Court exceeded their authority and abused its discre­ tion by granting respondent Tforce Freight’s motion for summary judgment dismissing petitioner’s case on a genuine issued of disputed facts infringing on peti­ tioner’s constitutional right of due process and a right to a fair trial, conflicting with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Matushita Elec. Indus, v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986), Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S., 477 U.S. at 248 (1986) and Section 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).

Did the United States Court of Appeals sanctioned the decision of the District Court, where the District Court exceeded their authority and abused its discre­ tion by failing to rule on three other counts of retalia­ tion in Petitioner’s partial motion for summary judg­ ment where the respondent Tforce Freight admitted to the retaliatory actions infringing on petitioner’s constitutional right to due process and which directly conflicts with views bound by principles of stare deci­ sis of the United States Supreme Court’s case law in National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) and Section 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e3(a).

Did the United States Court of Appeals sanctioned the decision of the District Court, where the District Court exceeded their authority and abused its discretion by ruling on respondent Tforce Freight’s motion for an extension of time to file an answer pleading without giving the Petitioner the oppor­ tunity to be heard, holding that respondent Tforce Freight demonstrated excusable negligence and com­ pletely ignoring its own order to show cause why “Plaintiffs request for entry of default should not be granted” infringing on petitioner’s constitutional right of due process, conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions on the fundamental right to be heard in Joint Anti-Fascist Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (1951), Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965), Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 (1914).

Did the United States Court of Appeals sanctioned the decision of the District Court where the District Court exceeded their authority and abused its discre­ tion by dismissing appellant’s causes of actions by ap­ plying the 2-year statute of limitations instead of 4- years of limitations to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 to the first count of retaliation and disregarded the other 3 retal­ iations counts, conflicting with 28 U.S.C § 1658(a) and Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369

and North Star Steel Co. v. Thomas, 515 U.S. 29, 34 (1995).