Fair hearings for warranty claims

1. Whether the Supremacy Clause permits a state court to effectively nullify rights and remedies created by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301 — 2312, through procedural rulings that prevent discovery, factual development, and adjudication of federal claims on their merits. See Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 367-75 (1990). 2. Whether Due Process and/or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment permit(s) a state court to dismiss a consumer warranty action before discovery or factual development, where the claims in a genuine complaint depend upon evidence concerning product defects, warranty performance, and related factual disputes. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976); Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950); Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982). 3. Whether Due Process and/or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment is/are violated when a state court denies a litigant a meaningful opportunity to be heard on federal statutory claims through the combined use of sanctions, denial of oral argument, refusal to address motions seeking judicial recusal, and other procedures that prevent fair and impartial adjudication. See In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955); Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956).