QUESTION 1:
In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,
544 U.S. 280 (2005), this Court held that federal courts
have jurisdiction to consider claims even if the result
would be inconsistent with a state court's prior decision.
Although Petitioner filed an independent claim based on
her statutory rights in 15 U.S.C. §1635, jurisdiction was
nevertheless declined. Can the Eleventh Circuit ignore
Exxon Mobil and apply its own now discarded standard
in Amos v. Glynn County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 3 47 F. 3d
1249 (11th Cir. 2003).

QUESTION 2:
In Semtek Intern. Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. , 531
U.S. 497 (2001) this Court held that when determining
claim preclusion based on state claims, the federal courts
must apply state law. Here, the lower court applied federal
law, rather than state law, to find that the complaint was
barred under res judicata . Can the lower court disregard
the well-established rule and dismiss the complaint based
on federal res judicata principles?

QUESTION 3:
This Court held in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc. , 135 S. Ct. 790, 790 (2015) that a TILA
rescission is a completed event upon the sending of a timely
notice of rescission under 15 U.S.C. §1635. Thus, there is
no (and there can be no) statute of limitation applied to
this already completed event. Petitioner timely sent the
notice of TILA rescission. Can the lower court disregard
Jesinoski and apply a doctrine which converts the event
of rescission into a claim of recession which can then be
denied?

Whether the Eleventh Circuit can ignore Exxon Mobil and apply its own discarded standard