Whether a District Court can nullify an existing diversity jurisdiction by doing sua sponte conversion of one of Plaintiff's two witnesses into Plaintiff's second Defendant without a hearing or full briefing

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Question 1 presented is: Whether a District Court can nullify an existing diversity jurisdiction by doing sua sponte conversion of one of Plaintiff’s two witnesses into Plaintiff’s second Defendant without a hearing or full briefing; an action that destroyed Plaintiff’s diversity jurisdiction, denied Plaintiff due process, and resulted in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. “Because a district court has no discretion not to abide by governing law, an erroneous legal conclusion deserves no deference on appeal. See Koon v. United States, 518 US. 81, 100 (1996); United States v. Titterington, 374 F.3d 453, 456 (6th Cir. 2004).”! . The two primary sources of subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts are diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally permits individuals to bring claims in federal court where the claim exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “We have an “independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the 1 United States v. LaDeau, No. 12-6611 (6th Cir. 2013). ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006).”? “.“a federal court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.” United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002).”8 “When a requirement goes to subject-matter jurisdiction, courts are obligated to consider sua sponte issues that the parties have disclaimed or have not presented. See United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002). Subject-matter jurisdiction can never be waived or forfeited. The objections may be resurrected at any point in the litigation, and a valid objection may lead a court midway through briefing to dismiss a complaint in its entirety. “(MJany months of work on the part of the attorneys and the court may be wasted.” Henderson, 562 US., at __, 181 S.Ct., at 1202. Courts, we have said, should not lightly attach those “drastic” consequences to limits Congress has enacted” Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012). A Court cannot create jurisdiction where . none existed. A Federal Court must have an “independent interest in ensuringthat legal proceedings appear fair to all who observe them.” Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 160 (1988). “A fundamental requirement of due process is “the opportunity to be heard.” Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 234 U.S. 394. It is an opportunity 2 Copen, et al. v. United States, et al., No. 20-3186 (6th Cir. 2021). 3 Freed v. Thomas, et al., No. 18-2312 (6th Cir. 2020). iii QUESTIONS PRESENTED -— Continued which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 _ (1965). The denial of due process implied that the Court “was without jurisdiction to render a final and binding decree.” See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950). Due process requires an “opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case” Mullane. And the “hearing must measure up to the standards of due process” Mullane. When a judgment violates “due process of law”, the judgment must be reversed. See Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill, 281 U.S. 673 (1930). “We generally review a claim of procedural or substantive unreasonableness under the deferential abuse of discretion standard, meaning we will grant relief “when a ruling is based on an error of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact, or when the reviewing court is otherwise left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment.” United States v. Moon, 808 F.3d 1085, 1090 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Kerley, 784 F.3d 327, 347 (6th Cir. 2015)).”4 Question 2 presented is: Whether a litigant can waive or forfeit an issue that determined subject-matter jurisdictio