Did the Ninth Circuit erroneously fail to recognize that 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) precludes the parties from selecting a magistrate judge

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the Ninth Circuit—in direct conflict with the Seventh Circuit—erroneously fail to recognize that 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) precludes the parties from selecting a particular magistrate judge to preside over their conflict and that, when they do so, the magistrate judge does not obtain jurisdiction over the matter? 2. Whether the Rule 11 motions did not adequately inform Petitioner of the source of authority for the sanctions being considered in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Federal Constitution (U.S. Const., 14th Amend.) and in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Federal Constitution (U.S. Const., 5th Amend.) 3. Whether denial to Petitioner of oral argument by the Magistrate Judge through the entire proceedings including in Petitioner opposing Rule 11 sanctions followed by the Ninth Circuit denying Petitioner’s request for oral argument and as a request for special accommodation under the American With Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended warrants reversal. 4. Whether The Rule 11 Motion Should Have Been Denied Because Airbnb Respondents Did Mot Mitigate Attorney Fees? a e ii 5. Whether California’s Anti-SLAPP Statute Can Apply In Federal Court Because The Statute Answers The Same Question As The Federal Rules And Is Valid Under The Rules Enabling Act? 6. Whether The Appellate Court Applied The Proper Standard On Appeal In Determining Whether Petitioner’s Motion For Recusal Should Have Been Granted?