1. Whether application of the contempt analysis
associated with Utah R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions to
review a Utah R. Civ. P. 83 Vexatious Litigant
order is fundamentally flawed due to lack of the
safe harbor which merits the extension of
jurisdiction beyond the dismissal of the
complaint when appropriately done per Rule
41?

2. Whether the Court of Appeals self-identified
lack of jurisdiction makes any determination on
the merits problematic especially by a clear and
convincing standard?

3. Whether Rule 11 framework is appropriate
given the Petitioner never received a letter
under Rule 11?

4. Whether the Rule 11 framework as applied to
Rule 83 analysis means that all of Rule 11
should be applicable and Petitioner withdrew
the alleged Offending Motions allows
preclusion of Rule 11 sanction?

5. Whether Petitioner is entitled to a de novo
assessment claims that matured as 100% of
the work was done under the AAA agreement?

6. Can a Utah state Court bar claims pending in
federal Court based on AAA?

7. Whether a moot case resuscitates after a
voluntary dismissal?

Whether application of the contempt analysis associated with Utah R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions to review a Utah R. Civ. P. 83 Vexatious Litigant order is fundamentally flawed