Ganiyu Ayinla Jaiyeola v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al.

Question 1 presented is: Whether the Sixth Circuit panel’s decision to affirm the District Court decision that was based on the “application of the wrong legal test” constituted a violation of a Supreme Court guideline (“an erroneous legal conclu­ sion deserves no deference on appeal”1), a de­ nial of due process to Plaintiff, and a violation of the “just” aspect of Rule 1; because even though the panel applied the correct law to the District Court decision, the panel and the District Court held no hearing and Plaintiff therefore did not have the opportunity to be heard. Indeed, the panel asserted as follows: “On remand, the district court denied Jaiyeola’s motion for sanctions, concluding that he had failed to meet his burden of proving by “clear and convincing evidence that Defendants’ counsel presented intentionally false material to the Court.” Obviously, Plaintiff could not have presented a “clear and convincing evi­ dence that Defendants’ counsel presented intentionally false material to the Court.” without a hearing at the District Court or at the Sixth Circuit. A “clear and convincing evidence” burden of proof is a very high standard for a Court to ask for. In a lawsuit where credibility of the litigants are tied to the facts of the case, an evidentiary hearing and cross-examination 1 Koon.