Aparna Vashisht-Rota v. Howell Management Services, LLC

Whether pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1981, failure to provide Appellants’ contractual dues is discriminatory?

Whether Appellant’s exercise of §925B to compel Utah to use California law retroactive to July 23, 2019 when the parties modified the employment to revert to California law means that Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §904.1 applies making the Orders final and appealable?

Whether Appellant’s inability to counter the Costs motion at trial Court prejudicial in light of the fact that she won the costs motion at the Court of Appeals on January 19, 2023 and URAP Rule 34 (D) allows a party to file a response?

Whether §925C allows Appellant to get attorney’s fees and injunctive relief for defending California employment in an out of state forum.

Whether under URAP 5, the November 1, 2022 items mentioned at paragraph 5 b in the June 9th, 2023 Order arose from the interlocutory appeal means that the Court of Appeals still has jurisdiction under URAP Rule 5 and as the June 9th, 2023 Order was used to restrict Petitioner from filing the costs on appeal win from the interlocutory appeal, does that mean that the Court of Appeals still has jurisdiction?