Question 1: Did the district court requiree the Defendants to adhere to the rules regarding a Motion12(b)(6) which prohibits claims asserted in a prior interation of the complaint from being defended in the subsequent motion. Were the ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claims revived when the Defendants plead a new defense in their new Motion to Dismiss?

Question 2: The district court initialy opined that the Plaintiff asserted valid ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claims. It later applied the settlors function (Two-hats Doctrine) to the ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claims, stating that AT&T, Inc., the Plan sponsor, was acting in an employer's capacity when the alleged actions were committed -- amended plan, submitted supplemental income payout information; and calculated, withheld and remitted contributions.

A. Under the Settlor's function (Two-hats doctrine), AT&T, Inc., the Plan sponsor, would have only be acting in an employer's capacity when amending the plan if the amendment named the correct plan. Did the district court error in it's decision considering that the name on the amendment was different than the name of the Plan the Plaintiff participated in?

B. Actions committed in regards to the contributions of the Savings and Pension Plans are committed in a fiduciary capacity. Did the district court error when it dismissed all cairns by stating that AT&T, Inc. was acting in an employer's capacity all actions were committed?

Question 3: Did the district court error when it failed to (1) accept the factual allegations set forth in the complaint as true, (2) draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, (3) address claims asserted against each defendant, and (4) use exhibits that support the claims to opine the claims?

Question 4: Reviewing a case de novo includes addressing the issues presented in the opposition to the report and recommendations and the questions presented in the appeal, and detailing the court's reasoning for it's decision. Did the District Court and the Appellate court address the issues/questions presented for their de novo review, and what of it's reasoning? Did their failure to address the issues/questions presented cause them not to realize the errors the Plaintiff had shown?

Question 5: Final judgements can be reversed for mistakes and inadvertence. Should the Court have reversed the district court's decision based on the errors shown?

Question not identified