One: Whether the trial court improperly granted
a Motion to Dismiss the putative class because there
was no notice to the putative class and therefore no
right to be heard violating the putative class's rights to
due process and notice under the 14th Amendment and
Rule 23(e) FRCP?

Two: Whether equitable tolling applies and
this case should be differentiated from Resh v. China
Agritech because there was no notice to the Farmers
class, and Farmers' taking of the policyholders' money
was done secretly, which differentiates it from Resh
where there were repeated notices to sophisticated
investors regarding their rights?

Three: The Supreme Court needs to rule that a
lack of notice to the class of unlitigated undisclosed deceptive acts and the loss of class action status for other
reasons gives the Defendants unequal protection under the 14th Amendment and is distinguishable from
China Agritech v. Resh.

Whether the trial court improperly granted a Motion to Dismiss the putative class because there was no notice to the putative class and therefore no right to be heard violating the putative class's rights to due-process,notice,14th-amendment,rule-23(e)-frcp