1. Whether the California Court of Appeal lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over this removed action and misapplied the federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1446, in a manner that conflicts with this Court's precedent in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Feliciano, 140 S. Ct. 696 (2020), and longstanding Ninth Circuit authority holding that state courts "shall proceed no further" unless and until a proper remand order issues.

2. Whether the state courts violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by entering orders and a final judgment while lacking jurisdiction, refusing to provide Petitioner notice and a meaningful opportunity to oppose the motion, and adjudicating substantial property rights without adequate process.

3. Whether California Code of Civil Procedure § 430.90(a)(2) applies to all removed actions—including those involving post-judgment or ancillary motions—and whether the state courts' selective or inconsistent application of that statute deprived Petitioner of equal protection and due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

4. Whether the state courts' invocation of the forfeiture doctrine to bar Petitioner's federal and statutory arguments—despite their timely presentation and where the issues involve pure questions of law—conflicts with controlling authority and violates the constitutional requirement that appellate courts decide legal questions necessary to prevent manifest injustice.

5. Whether a state court may, consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment and California's homestead statutes, adjudicate and award a homestead determination under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 704.710(c) and 704.720(d) where the movant failed to satisfy statutory prerequisites, the property had already been awarded as separate property, and the state court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order.

Whether the California Court of Appeal lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over a removed action and violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses by entering orders and final judgment while lacking jurisdiction, refusing to provide notice and opportunity to be heard, and selectively applying state procedural statutes to bar federal arguments