Whether the Ninth Circuit decision should be reversed and remanded because the panel erred by failing to conduct de novo review affirming the final judgment of the District Court dismissing with prejudice the Pro Se Petitioner's complaint, without granting leave to amend to bolster her equitable tolling, estoppel and fraudulent concealment defenses to the applicable statutes of limitation upon which the district court based its final judgment;

Did the Ninth Circuit err when contrary to the holding in 14 Penn Plaza requiring the Petitioner/Appellant to exhaust her administrative remedies under California law and her union contract, it affirmed the District Court's decision applying the law in a manner that foreclosed application of equitable tolling and equitable estoppel rendering Petitioner/Appellant's federal claims untimely?

When determining that Petitioner/Appellant was barred by the statutes of limitation that applied to her federal claims, did the Ninth Circuit err when it affirmed the District Court's decision that failed to weigh the actions of state actors contributing to the "untimely filing"?

Whether the Ninth Circuit decision should be reversed and remanded