Whether the appeals court erred in granting summary judgment based on a purported 'waived defense' under FRCP 12(b)(6) and contravening numerous decisions of this Court

No question identified. : a 7. ¢ Cd . an EXitoadrdaind deoart re TON Accepi 5 (JQ: | Cial proceed ings The appeals Curt granted Summary _ a 4 f) 4 Nn > based a te pucsuant FRCP provision 12 @ hb GA) and cor Aenea ey a o NuUmMe cust h P ohdgtes and Man/deéc\s ion aot the ct; SF suck of 5 dl? ERCP | (LTA) and itraduce that " whived defense” Q3 Qa. ° a Coftteauene Rules 8G), 54 andthis Courts 9 oO “C . decisions 3 . . 5 Ne Covel ot oppey! QAINOT Gitkle CONT oti imnag PIQITh deference la Grrevance P| 08 09 180 Gec GG) prior . a? f /e A OnwHNng detendonrs Summa IONE Or ‘ la, Go > a Qa o Corttraven ino F RCP ond numerous decisions ofthe. i . o _ 8 [e] 1 | its extraordinan/ departure and Care/The burden _e@ or Dersudsion las Sheutthraugh anal rica o 7 aA policarian of palia/ 0308130 C0) that Mr. So a Co theo @ i f. Ue [ S0es and def andants were entitled Bi ra a fe — Bi Cr er, Pr) _ a noo ITE, Hm nro Manto MM leh tf) POCessin | ariewance Mel IFC Mace steps 1] antl : tO 3 Step stan tunctionalh/ vnavailal le end a a [7) a | Whe appeals urt Stil! Sanetion Petr immer far . a forlore To exhaust, See nex page YY asthe CG ctotapne redh Nine 16 OIE Co . Y ‘OD Erolling udiah JOETEVGICE lo ond Oe O policy’ 03 68 190° Which procedural’ learred Udrden Bort(ali bam nvol; 24 tn the redre: ONVACESS lok he did 7h hf aNd rend ed The process turch gl unavorlable Py, HW} the Gort als Z lV 200 a Oo Ga Created 4 Tiviedirtional Debact Uhhen H# vse — a o o Ne? ‘1 WMsdl Cty 2HNVved torterted dels | Val lilB) Ge ¢ a ta dweel" The Curls of aetimate~ a a a C a VBE dictianal | Ce 2 oursvartFACP A | Co oC , | 3 als Te dive 1 Sul Dect Male Tuledictian ge . |