Did the Court of Appeal violate the due process rights of Appellant?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Plaintiff has tried all possible means ever since his discovery on July 6, 2017 of lyricist Leo Robin’s star to confer with the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce to install the star awarded to Robin on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. In the end, the Hollywood Chamber ultimately failed do the right thing by not fulfilling its obligation to install the star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in accordance with the binding written contract. During the trial court proceedings the Plaintiff repeatedly argued the waiver of performance of conditions precedent by the Hollywood Chamber. The waiver issue was never fleshed out earlier because the trial court and the Hollywood Chamber failed to acknowledge, overlooked and for avoided this salient legal argument. The Court of Appeal who generally reviews what has occurred during the trial court has ruled strictly on the Appellant's argument regarding the waiver by the Hollywood|Chamber of the conditions precedent. fi The Questions Presented Are: 1. In this case of perilously profound impression, did the Court of Appeal violate the due process rights of Appellant when it arbitrarily disregarded allegations by the Appellant without a hearing at the eleventh hour based on its contention that those allegations characterize his correspondence with the Hollywood Chamber in a manner that conflicts with the actual text of that correspondence provided in the exhibits to determine that the Hollywood Chamber did not waive performance of the conditions precedent? ii 2a. Where the Court of Appeal simultaneously served as the factfinder and the reviewing court, did the Court of Appeal violate the due process rights of Appellant in determining that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof “clear and convincing” evidence standard to prove the Hollywood Chamber waived performance of the conditions precedent for the star awarded to Robin? | 2b. (In a related auestiot) Did the Court of Appeal violate the sacred right to o trial by jury and the due process rights of Appellant when it made the decision on whether the Hollywood Chamber waived performance of the conditions precedent ‘and thereby precluding a jury to make this determination? | iii ,