Whether Texas courts would hold a smartphone manufacturer liable for injuries and deaths caused by a driver distracted by the manufacturer's smartphone

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Has the court of appeals failed to exercise its mandatory diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 by refusing to make an “Hie guess” whether Texas courts would hold a smartphone manufacturer liable for the injuries and deaths which ensued after a driver, distracted by her smartphone, collided with another vehicle, especially when Texas law provides a reasonably clear template for making that prediction? 2. Were petitioners denied due process of law or their right of access to the courts when after refusing to make an “Evie guess” about whether Texas law would hold respondent liable for its role in causing this accident, the court of appeals refused swa sponte to certify this question to the Texas Supreme Court and then denied petitioners’ motion to do so?