Was the precedent established by the U. S. Supreme Court in summons-and-complaint followed in the lower courts' decisions

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case is predicated on the due process of law in a summons and complaint, as to whether it was properly served on the defendant. The questions presented are: ) 1. Was the precedent established by the U. S. Supreme Court in summons and complaint followed in the lower courts’ decisions. 2. Did the summons and complaint served by Plaintiff provide adequate notice _ under due process of law for defendant to answer the complaint as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(a). 3. Is mere form of service sufficient to deny that notice of complaint under due process of law was served on defendant. , 4. Was the district court correct in denying plaintiff's request for default judgment when the defendant did not answer the complaint in the period of time allowed by Rule 12(a) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. Is defendant deemed to have waived any objection to personal jurisdiction or service of process if the defendant makes a pre-answer motion under Rule 12 and fails to include such objections in that motion. 6. Did the district court abuse its discretion and make an error of law when it dismissed plaintiff's complaints refusing to grant default judgment when defendant failed to answer the complaint under Rule 12(a). i 7. Did plaintiff state a claim on which relief may be granted. . 8. Was defendant’s motion to transfer the case to the federal district court evidence that it had received notice of the summons and complaint of plaintiff?