Whether the California Court of Appeal erred by affirming judgment based on the federal district court's inquiry notice in favor of the defendants without addressing, hearing or ruling on plaintiffs equitable estoppel defense and disregarded it?

QUESTION PRESENTED The United States District Court, Central District of California decided two suits between petitioner and one respondent, Pfizer, Inc. The first suit an alleged infertility injury was dismissed in 2006 and the second, a latent toxic exposure cancer injury was dismissed by the district court on inquiry notice on behalf of a law firm and its clients the court favored in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Petitioner re-filed the cancer injury in state court against : multiple defendants, one of which creates an equitable estoppel bar to all , respondents’ defenses. The estoppel issue was not raised in the trial court; however, in California whether causes of action are time-barred is a question of law based on undisputed facts and a change in theory is permitted to be raised for the first time on appeal. The California Court of Appeal affirmed : the lower court’s ruling on statute of limitations with emphasis on the district court’s bias inquiry notice decision without addressing, hearing or ruling on petitioner’s estoppel defense. The district court’s decision relied on by the state trial court and court of appeal is a substantial element in petitioner’s state court action. The question presented is: 1) Whether the California Court of Appeal erred by affirming judgment based on the federal district court’s inquiry notice in favor of the defendants without addressing, hearing or ruling on plaintiffs equitable estoppel defense and disregarded it? : 2) Did the district judge’s bias toward and/or collusion with defense counsel and its client in federal court unfairly impact petitioner’s rights in state court under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) when it ruled on inquiry notice to plaintiffs claim? 3) Whether based on question one and two (1) and (2) plaintiffs due process clause was prejudiced thereby?