Whether the trial court improperly granted a Motion to Dismiss the putative class because there was no notice to the putative class and therefore no right to be heard violating the putative class's rights to due-process,notice,14th-amendment,rule-23(e)-frcp

QUESTIONS PRESENTED One: Whether the trial court improperly granted a Motion to Dismiss the putative class because there was no notice to the putative class and therefore no right to be heard violating the putative class’s rights to due process and notice under the 14th Amendment and Rule 23(e) FRCP? Two: Whether equitable tolling applies and this case should be differentiated from Resh v. China Agritech because there was no notice to the Farmers class, and Farmers’ taking of the policyholders’ money was done secretly, which differentiates it from Resh where there were repeated notices to sophisticated investors regarding their rights? Three: The Supreme Court needs to rule that a lack of notice to the class of unlitigated undisclosed deceptive acts and the loss of class action status for other reasons gives the Defendants unequal protection under the 14th Amendment and is distinguishable from China Agritech v. Resh.