Whether the district court erred in its burden to establish all four elements of res-judicata-and-conduct-de-novo-review

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN ITS BURDEN TO ESTABLISH ALL FOUR ELEMENTS OF RES JUDICATA AND CONDUCT DE NOVO REVIEW. (1) IT INVOLVES THE SAME PARTIES AS THE SAME SUIT; (I) THE FIRST SUIT RESULTED IN A FINAL JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS; (III) THE SECOND SUITE RAISES CLAIMS BASED ON THE SAME TRANSACTION OR OCCURRENCES AS THE FIRST SUIT; (IV) THE CLAIMS IN THE SECOND SUIT WERE RAISED OR COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE FIRS SUIT. i. Petitioners answered: "Yes" — ii. Respondents answered: "No" iii. The District Court answered “No” iv. The 6th Circuit answered: “No” v. This Court should answer: "Yes" 2. ALTERNATIVELY, WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT, AND MAGISTRATE REPORT & RECOMMENDATION CONTAINS A FUNDAMENTAL FLAW, WHEN BOTH IGNORED MALKA LEEAL’S MOTION TO AMEND CASE CAPTION REMOVING MATI LEEAL’S NAME FROM THE COMPLAINT, AND ITS EFFECT. ii i. Petitioners answered: "Yes" ‘ ui. Respondents answered: "No" . ili. The District Court answered | “No” iv. The 6% Circuit answered: “No” v. This Court should answer: "Yes" 3. WHETHER THE RECORD SUPPORTS THE DISTRICT COURT’S FACTUAL FINDINGS: PLAINTIFF MALKA LEEAL IS A BORROWER, OR THE DISTRICT COURT ; INTENDED TO ENFORCE PETITIONER MALKA LEEAL TO PAY MATI LEEAL (DECEASED) 2007 NOTE OBLIGATION, A NOTE SHE DID NOT SIGN ISA FUNDAMENTAL FLAW? i. Petitioners answered: "Yes" ii. Respondents answered: "No" . . iii. The District Court answered “No” iv. The 64 Circuit answered: “No” v. This Court should answer: "Yes" 4. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT’S DECISION CONTAINING A FUNDAMENTAL FLAW: THAT IT GRANTED RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, RELIES ON NOVEL EXPLANATION WITHOUT IDENTIFYING THE SUB RULE UNDER WHICH IT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT. SMITH V. GLOBE LIFE INS. CO, 460 MICH 446, 454; 597 NW2D 8 (1999), IS tii SUFFICIENT FOR MEANINGFUL . APPELLATE REVIEW? 1. Petitioners answered: "Yes" li. Respondents answered: "No" iii. The District Court answered “No” , , iv. The 6th Circuit answered: “No” v. This Court should answer: "Yes" 5. ALTERNATIVELY, WHETHER THE LAW ; ALLOWED RESPONDENTS TO ENLIST THE | AID OF THE COURT TO TRANSFER TO PETITIONER MALKA LEEAL, THE OBLIGATION OF MATI (DECEASED) TO PAY HIS NOTE, SIMPLY BECAUSE THAT WAS RESPONDENTS ONLY REMAINING AVENUE TO RECOVER ITS FUNDS? 1. Petitioners answered: "Yes" ii. Respondents answered: "No" iii. The District Court answered “No” iv. The 6 Circuit answered: “No” . v. This Court should answer: "Yes" | . iv