In litigation between two parties, time-tested principles of claim preclusion and issue preclusion govern when parties may —and may not—litigate issues that were, or could have been, litigated in a prior case. This Court has held that, in a subsequent case between the same parties involving different claims from those litigated in the earlier case; the defendant is free to raise defenses that were not litigated in the earlier case, even though they could have been. The Federal Circuit, Eleventh Circuit, and Ninth Circuit have all held the same in recent years. Their reasoning is straightforward: Claim preclusion does not bar such defenses, because the claims in the second case arise from different "transactions" and occurrences from the first case, and issue preclusion does not bar them either, because they were never actually litigated. However, The Fifth Circuit, hold they have no authority to adjudicate for lack of jurisdiction to hear preclusion order(s) disputes; which affects the states under their jurisdictions; the nation and public to due process under the 5th and 14th constitutional amendments of the United States. Also, as seen in U.S. Supreme Court case 18-1086; Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. v. Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc., 17-0361 (Aug. 2, 2018); case Appendix O. Other circuits have jurisdiction in these matters and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has erred in this important critical matter citing they lack jurisdiction to hear preclusion order; Appendix A.

The question presented is: Whether, when a plaintiff asserts new claims, federal preclusion principles bar a defendant from raising defenses that were not actually litigated and resolved in any prior case between the parties; and whether their Fifth and Fourteenth Constitutional Rights for due process to a fair trial have been violated.

(1) Whether a Temporary Restraining Order, TRO, for not more than 14 days of relief is a "lawsuit" or merely a petition for temporary relief and not a lawsuit. Because the Fifth Circuit in their judgment is agreeing with the federal court that Dawson violated and or defy her preclusion order by filing three TROs in state court as is her constitutional right. Appendix L & K. Noting how the court indicates on pg. 5, para 2; Appendix A; a temporary restraining order, however, does not qualify as an injunction under this section. Indeed, temporary restraining orders are generally not appealable because they are "usually effective for only very brief periods of time and are then generally supplanted by appealable temporary or permanent injunctions." This statement should be clear that TROs are not "lawsuits" which has been Dawson's argument from day one; and that Respondent is the one that defied a TRO issued August 06, 2018; Appendix K; and foreclosed any way in a subsequent unlawful removal to federal court in violation of 28 U.S.C. 1441(c); as described in Petitioner's brief and below.

(2) BoNYM are incorporated or deemed to be in the State of Texas with the Secretary of State, SOS, if so, then are citizens in accordance with U.S.C. § 1441(c); § 1331; § 1391; and the district court has no jurisdiction based on civil diversity and a federal question was never raised. ROA.273-280; and seen in Joyce Leggette v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA et. al., case No. 3-03-

Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in holding that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate preclusion order disputes