Whether the lower court's decision conflicts with Supreme Court precedent on pleading standards, circuit court rulings on discovery law, and the scope of third-party intervention

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The questions presented are ripe for the Court’s ; guidance on at least four unresolved or underdeveloped aspects of civil litigation, namely conflict in fundamental assumptions of pleading law by lower courts, conflict in what constitutes to be sufficiency in legal proceedings, conflict in interpretation of discovery law by lower courts, and the nature and extent to which a third-party intervenor should be allowed to interfere in civil litigation between two private parties. 1. Whether the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for , the Fourth Circuit conflicted with this Court’s binding and governing precedent in Bel/ Atlantic Corp. v. . Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). . 2. Whether the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit conflicted with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit in Faulkner v. ADT Security Services, Inc., 706 F.3d. 1017 (2013). 3. Whether the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit conflicted with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Sundstrand Corp. v. Standard Kollsman Industries, , Inc., 488 F.2d 807, 7th Cir. (1973). 4. To what extent should a third-party, which is not : named as a party in a civil lawsuit or in any cause of action therein, should be allowed to intervene or interfere in or disrupt a civil lawsuit between two private parties. (ii)