Whether the district court erred by dismissing the case on the grounds that the Petitioner who is the sole owner and shareholder of the corporation did not have a right to represent the corporation or to sue but needed an attorney

Questions Presented , 1. Whether the district court erred by dismissing the case on the grounds ° that the Petitioner who is the sole owner and shareholder of the corporation did not have a right to represent the corporation or to sue but needed an attorney. 2. Whether the sole owner of corporation requires to have an attorney in litigation under corporate laws, but same corporate laws permit an individual to form a corporation without a need of an attorney. 3. Whether the corporate laws written over 200 years ago need to update to facilitate new era of single entity owner who faces the high cost challenge to retain an attorney and/or unable to retain an attorney or attorney unable take their case by their choice leave them fail to obtain fair-justice from the world finest American Justice System. 4. Whether the requirement of the business entity to have a legal counsel be revised and treated differently when there are single shareholder verses multiple shareholders and/or a public traded corporation to facilitate today’s age legal challenges for a single shareholder owner of entity. 5. Whether the Ninth Circuit made a fundamental error by dismissing the case because they failed to apply the shareholder’s exception as required by law despite the three Hon. Justice has permitted Mr. Ali to file open and reply brief as an individual capacity on March 29, 2018. 2