FIRST: Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3)1
require every federal court, including this Court, to
"dismiss" this case because the federal courts never acquired jurisdiction of this case, and thus, on the record
of this case require this Court to reverse the holding of
the court of appeals and to order that this case be remanded back to the state court from whence it was improvidently removed, in view of the plain language of
the Rule, the applicable law pertaining to removal and
to jurisdiction, and the prior recognition by this Court
that: "Courts must apply the Federal Rules as they are
written. . . ." Carlton v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2399,
192 L.Ed.2d 911, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4066 (2015) (opinion
by Sotomayor, J.).

SECOND: Where in a case only one of three state
court defendants, all of whom were sued and served
but never appeared or answered in that state court
proceeding, removes on sole basis of alleged diversity
jurisdiction, but admits in the Notice of Removal document that one of the defendants [Gonzales] has not
consented to removal and is in fact a citizen-resident
of the same state as plaintiff, thereby admitting lack of
diversity jurisdiction, and a timely motion to remand
is filed, can a federal district court thus lacking jurisdiction commence to assume control over that case and
issue orders, then purport to have created diversity
jurisdiction by unilaterally dismissing the admittedly
non-diverse defendant who did not even consent to removal, then proceed to issue various orders to dismember and destroy and de facto dismiss the case,
notwithstanding that Article III courts have limited jurisdiction, and that it has been clear since 1806 that
complete diversity is absolutely required in order to establish diversity jurisdiction,
see Strawbridge
U.
Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806) (opinion by
Marshall, C.J.), and notwithstanding the clear command of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).

THIRD: Can a federal court of appeals ignore the clear
command of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3),
and ignore failure of a removing party to properly comply with rules and procedures required in a removal
process, and also ignore the requirements that (a.) a
removing party trying to invoke federal court jurisdiction bears the burden to prove that the federal court to
which the case is removed has jurisdiction, and (b.)
there cannot be diversity jurisdiction an any multiparty case without [among other requirements] complete diversity, and can that appeals court proceed to
treat the removal and jurisdictional issues before it as
simply being procedural matters which do not require
strict compliance by a removing party, and thereby
contrive to affirm actions of a federal district court that
has acted without jurisdiction to do so.

FOURTH: Did the honorable court of appeals, in this
case, err in failing to permit supplementation [by
of the record when that
supplementation would have provided a document
[. . . . on letterhead and showing that state court Defendant Gonzales was in fact a direct employee of the
removing party, Allstate, and was not simply some sort
of innocent and uninvolved bystander as she was portrayed in the misleading "affidavit" improperly filed in
the federal court record by the Allstate attorneys. . . . ]
which would have made it

Whether federal courts must dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction under FRCP 12(h)(3) when diversity jurisdiction is lacking, even after improper removal