This case is predicated on the due process of law in a summons and
complaint, as to whether it was properly served on the defendant. The questions
presented are:

1. Was the precedent established by the U. S. Supreme Court in summons
and complaint followed in the lower courts ' decisions.

2. Did the summons and complaint served by Plaintiff provide adequate notice
under due process of law for defendant to answer the complaint as required by
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(a).

3. Is mere form of service sufficient to deny that notice of complaint under due
process of law was served on defendant.

4. Was the district court correct in denying plaintiffs request for default
judgment when the defendant did not answer die complaint in the period of time
allowed by Rule 12(a) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

5. Is defendant deemed to have waived any objection to personal jurisdiction or
service of process if the defendant makes a pre-answer motion under Rule 12 and
fails to include such objections in that motion.

6. Did the district court abuse its discretion and make an error of law when it
dismissed plaintiffs complaints refusing to grant default judgment when
defendant failed to answer the complaint under Rule 12(a).

7. Did plaintiff state a claim on which relief may be granted.

8. Was defendant 's motion to transfer the case to the federal district court
evidence that it had received notice of the summons and complaint of plaintiff?

Was the precedent established by the U. S. Supreme Court in summons-and-complaint followed in the lower courts' decisions