Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in de-novo review of summary judgment on disputed issues of fact

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did Ninth Circuit Court err in de-novo review of summary judgment in deciding disputed issues of fact as the district court had done, that 5-years statute of limitations to conclude arbitration under California uninsured motorist statutes (California Insurance Code Section 11580.2(4)(2)(A)) had expired on September 1, 2016. The Petitioner had disputed that he never received any notice including September 24, 2012, letter of expiration of 5-year statute of limitations as required under California Insurance Code 11580.2(k) which tolled the statute of limitations by 30-days. State Farm admitted dispute and supported with Petitioner’s letters dated August 25, 26, September 2, 6, 8, 2016, in support of its summary judgment motion. (App.56a__ 66a)? 2. Did Ninth Circuit Court decide issues of fact underlying the doctrines of estoppel, waiver, impossibility, impracticability, and futility excusing party’s non-compliance with statutory time frames under Cal = st—<CSsts Insurance Code Section 11580.2(i)(3)? 8. Can the requirement to give written 30-day notice of expiration of 5-year statute of limitations to conclude arbitration under Cal. Insurance Code Section 11580.2(k) be satisfied by giving that notice 4-years earlier? 4. Did Ninth Circuit Court and district court err in disallowing discovery and deposition of sole witness, an attorney upon whose declaration summary judgment motion was granted, where attorney in declaration merely authenticated letters between Petitioner and her, without testifying to any particular facts, severely prejudicing Petitioner? ii ;