Special appearance. In federal courts, "special
appearances" no longer exist—and have not for many
decades. But lawyers file them every day and district
courts regularly allow and honor them as if they actually meant something. But they do not. When, as
here, defendants make a purported "special appearance" and obtain dismissal from a case without prejudice, may the plaintiff serve those former specially
appearing lawyers with a copy of an amended complaint—or must the plaintiff serve the amended complaint on the former defendants that had made the
special appearances?

Surprisingly, this is not an issue this Court has
ever addressed, although special appearances are filed
daily in federal courts. This Court has also never addressed whether special appearances even exist—or
should exist. Do they exist?

Benefit-of-the-bargain damages. Did the district court err by failing to apply substantive Arizona
law requiring application of Arizona's unique benefitof-the-bargain damages rule? This Court has never
addressed whether a district can refuse to apply a
plaintiff's decision to seek damages under a state-law
benefit-of-the-bargain damages rule.

Applying substantive state law on statutes of
limitations. Did the defendants waive the statute-oflimitations defense by hoarding it until almost two
years after they filed their answers, letting the costly
litigation go forward, and then springing the defense
on Pacesetter in summary-judgment motions? If there
was no waiver, did the district court properly refuse
to let the trier of fact decide if, under the discovery
rule or the concealment doctrine, the relevant statutes
of limitations were tolled? This Court has never addressed whether the Arizona waiver-by-conduct doctrine would apply to this situation.

Whether defendants who make a purported 'special appearance' and obtain dismissal from a case without prejudice must be served with an amended complaint