1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS
THE APPEAL BECAUSE IT ALLEGEDLY "LACKS AN ARGUABLE BASIS
EITHER IN LAW OR IN FACT " WITHOUT GIVING PETITIONER THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HER EVIDENCE AND BE HEARD ON THE
ISSUES PRESENTED TO THEM FOR REVIEW ON THE MERITS, WITHOUT
ENFORCING RESPONDENT 'S COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL RULES OF
APPELATE PROCEDURE ("FRAP ") AND COURT 'S LOCAL RULES ("LOCAL
RULES "); AND WHETHER THESE ISSUES WERE PROPERLY ADDRESSED BY
THE COURT PRIOR TO RENDERING ITS DECISION?

2. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ' JUDGEMENT IS PROCEDURALLY
DEFICIENT AND CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID SINCE IT DENIED
PETITIONER 'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE CAPTION OF THE
CASE, ADD PARTIES, SUPPLEMENT THE PLEADINGS, COMPELL THE
DISCLOSURE-PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT-ORDER ("MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ") OVERLOOKING
THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE TO
THE MOTION IN DISREGARD OF FRAP AND LOCAL RULES, AND THE
COURT FAILED TO DEMAND A RESPONSE; WHETHER THE COURT
MISCARRIAGED JUSTICE BY NOT RENDERING A TIMELY DECISION ON
THE MOTION; AND WHETHER THESE ISSUES WERE PROPERLY
ADDRESSED BY THE COURT PRIOR TO ITS DECISION ON PETITIONER 'S
MOTION?

3. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT 'S JUDGEMENT IS PROCEDURALLY
DEFICIENT AND CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID SINCE IT DENIED
PETITIONER 'S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT, INTRODUCE NEW
EVIDENCE AND REOPEN THE CASE ("MOTION TO VACATE THE
JUDGMENT ") WITHOUT AFFORDING HER AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD
ON THE ISSUES PRESENTED TO THEM FOR REVIEW ON THE MERITS AND
RECEIVING RESPONDENT 'S ANSWER TO THE MOTION; WHETHER THE
COURT FAILED TO ORDER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT GIVEN RESPONDENT 'S
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ("FRCP ")
AND LOCAL RULES; WHETHER THE COURT FAILED TO ENFORCE
COMPLIANCE WITH FRCP AND LOCAL RULES BY NOT DEMANDING
RESPONDENT 'S ANSWER AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS FOR SUCH
VIOLATIONS; WHETHER THESE ISSUES WERE ADDRESSED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT PRIOR TO RENDERING ITS DECISION; AND WHETHER
THESE ISSUES WERE PROPERLY REVIEWED AND ADDRESSED BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT ON APPEAL?

4. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ' JUDGMENT IS PROCEDURALLY
DEFICIENT AND CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID AS IT OVERLOOKED THE
FACT THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT FILE AND SERVE THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FORM IN DISREGARD
OF FRAP AND LOCAL RULES; WHETHER THE COURT FAILED TO ENFORCE
COMPLIANCE WITH FRAP AND LOCAL RULES BY NOT DEMANDING
RESPONDENT 'S ANSWER AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS FOR SUCH
VIOLATIONS; AND WHETHER THESE ISSUES WERE PROPERLY
ADDRESSED BY THE COURT PRIOR

Whether the court had authority to dismiss the appeal without giving the petitioner opportunity to present evidence and be heard on the merits