Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, should the lower courts have upheld the sanctity of the oath and estopped USC and Gibson Dunn from arguing inconsistent positions that spanned a decade-and-a-half?

2. Did USC and Gibson Dunn present knowingly false statements to the Ninth Circuit, when asked multiple times whether the intent of the Isaacs-USC 2008 settlement agreement was to invalidate the Isaacs-USC 2007 settlement, or did Robin Dal Soglio falsely represent to the District Court that the 2008 settlement "had no effect" on the 2007 settlement agreement?

3. Dr. Isaacs' medical license (see 2018 cert petition) was revoked for his reliance upon Dal Soglio's above representation. Should a physician be effectively barred from medical practice for life, because he relied upon one of two contradictory positions taken by USC counsel over a span of fourteen years?

4. Does FRCP 41(d) allow for award of attorneys' fees, or is it limited to costs, per the plain language of the Rule?

5. Per dissenting Judge Ikuto, is "the [majority] interpretation unreasonable" that a settlement agreement was written with intent to be unenforceable?

Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, should the lower courts have upheld the sanctity of the oath and estopped USC and Gibson Dunn from arguing inconsistent positions that spanned a decade-and-a-half?