Aparna Vashisht-Rota v. Howell Management Services, et al.

Whether application of the contempt analysis associated with Utah R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions to review a Utah R. Civ. P. 83 Vexatious Litigant order is fundamentally flawed due to lack of the safe harbor which merits the extension of jurisdiction beyond the dismissal of the complaint when appropriately done per Rule 41?

Whether the Court of Appeals self-identified lack of jurisdiction makes any determination on the merits problematic especially by a clear and convincing standard?

Whether Rule 11 framework is appropriate given the Petitioner never received a letter under Rule 11?

Whether the Rule 11 framework as applied to Rule 83 analysis means that all of Rule 11 should be applicable and Petitioner withdrew the alleged Offending Motions allows preclusion of Rule 11 sanction?

Whether Petitioner is entitled to a de novo assessment claims that matured as 100% of the work was done under the AAA agreement?

Can a Utah state Court bar claims pending in federal Court based on AAA?

Whether a moot case resuscitates after a voluntary dismissal?