Whether the constitutional right to a jury trial can be usurped by the trial court and appellate court interfering with the jury's fact finding role

question presented is whether the constitutional right to a jury trial can be usurped by the trial court and appellate court interfering with the jury’s fact finding role? Can the rule of law and our federalism survive if the United States Supreme Court neglects its duty to correct the Circuit Courts when they, with impunity, deny the right to a jury trial? Petitioner Gary Lewis (“Insured”), an American consumer, sued his liability insurance carrier, Respondent United Automobile Insurance Company (“Insurer”), in 2009. Since then, the federal courts, though determining he suffered some damages from a breach of the duty to defend, have denied Lewis a jury trial or even one evidentiary hearing and disregarded all of the following: an excess of $3,000,000.00 2008 Nevada state court judgment damaging the insured; a similar 2018 Nevada state court judgment damaging the insured; a similar 2018 California state court judgment damaging the insured; clear Nevada precedent in the almost identical case of Allstate v. Miller requiring a jury trial on the reasonableness of the Insurer’s discharge of its duty of affirmative good faith and fair dealing; clear Nevada precedent arising out of the almost identical federal case of Andrew v. Century Surety requiring a jury trial on all damages caused to the insured; and other damages in addition to the judgments alleged in the complaint. Ultimately, the federal courts ruled on contested material facts against the Insured. These improper rulings took the case from the jury on li QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued summary judgment without review. Three separate courts claimed a “lack of jurisdiction” because of alleged no damages to the Insured. The Court decided that the insured was not damaged by two 2018 state court judgments in California and Nevada. If these failures are left unchecked, what will be the effect on our federalism, the rule of law and the constitutionally protected right to a jury trial? The Insured sued his Insurer in the state court of Nevada. The Insurer removed the case to federal court under diversity of citizenship. Through improper procedural wranglings, the Insurer has, for fifteen years, prevented the Insured’s claim from ever reaching a jury trial, or even an evidentiary hearing. This undermines Nevada’s insurance regulatory regime, the rule of law and our federalism. The jury trial is not a nifty procedural nicety for the Insured—it is a Nevada state and United States constitutional right. Justice, even in Nevada, should not be a roll of the dice. After fifteen years of litigation, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiffs’ third Ninth Circuit appeal claiming a lack of jurisdiction because of no damages to the Insured. This final insult ignored two 2018 state court judgments (that are still valid and damaging the Insured) in the record. This action could cut off the Insured’s rights under the Nevada and United States Constitution to a jury trial—FOREVER. ili QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued Can the federal judicial system disregard the judicial acts of the state courts, the specific findings of state courts in related actions, the general state court decisional law and the state court statutory law governing insurance claims practices? Is efficiency of the dockets more important than justice? If so, our federalism and the rule of law are no more. The federal judiciary cannot make the insured consumer plaintiffs’ path so procedurally complicated and prolonged such that the persistent plaintiff, who perseveres against his insurance company, is ultimately punished because the case has been pending for a prolonged period. No court should ever tire of doing justice. The mere passage of time cannot destroy the constitutional right to a jury trial. The delay in getting to a jury trial is an indictment of the justice system, not a reason for refusing to apply state law faithfully.