Bank of Louisiana v. FDIC, 33 F.4th 836

The Bank of Louisiana was sanctioned by the FDIC in enforcement proceedings and sought to overturn those orders through a direct appeal route under the banking code.
While the direct appeals were pending, the Bank sued the FDIC in district court raising constitutional challenges tied to the enforcement proceedings.
The district court dismissed the Bank’s suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding the constitutional claims were intertwined with the enforcement process and thus belonged in the exclusive review channel for Board orders.
The Bank repeatedly refiled essentially the same constitutional claims in district court and repeatedly asked the Fifth Circuit to transfer its direct appeals to district court; each time the Fifth Circuit held the district court lacked jurisdiction.
The Bank filed three more complaints in district court; the court consolidated them and dismissed under preclusion doctrine because they reasserted the same jurisdictional issue previously decided against the Bank.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, explaining that prior jurisdictional determinations can have preclusive effect (framed as issue preclusion) and that the Bank had not cured the jurisdictional defect it previously litigated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prior dismissals for lack of jurisdiction preclude relitigation	Dismissals for lack of jurisdiction are without prejudice and thus not preclusive	Prior rulings preclude relitigation of the same jurisdictional question	Prior jurisdictional rulings can have preclusive effect (issue preclusion) and bar relitigation
Whether preclusion at issue is claim preclusion or issue preclusion	Plaintiff argues claim preclusion does not apply to jurisdictional dismissals	Defendant argues the prior jurisdictional rulings should preclude relitigation of that issue	Court framed the effect as issue preclusion, not claim preclusion
Whether the Bank cured the jurisdictional defect and may refile	Bank contends its new complaints address prior defects or are permissibly refiled	FDIC contends the new complaints repeat the same jurisdictional problem	The Bank did not cure the jurisdictional defect; complaints repeat the same issue and are precluded
Whether dismissal under res judicata principles was proper here	Bank says repeated filings do not revive jurisdiction	FDIC says repeated suits attempt to relitigate settled jurisdictional issue	Dismissal affirmed: relitigation of the same jurisdictional issue is barred

Ins. Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982) (principle that res judicata can apply to jurisdictional determinations)
Boone v. Kurtz, 617 F.2d 435 (5th Cir. 1980) (affirming that jurisdictional dismissals can preclude relitigation of the jurisdictional issue)
Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 718 F.3d 460 (5th Cir. 2013) (discussing preclusive effect of prior rulings and distinguishing claim vs. issue preclusion)
Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United States, 365 F.3d 385 (5th Cir. 2004) (explaining claim-preclusion requires a prior final judgment on the merits)
Lopez v. Pompeo, 923 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2019) (res judicata does not bar a new suit that cures a previously identified jurisdictional defect)
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (2016) (a judgment based on prematurity or failure to satisfy preconditions does not bar a later action once those issues are resolved)
Ansari v. Bella Auto. Grp., Inc., 145 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 1998) (example that a case dismissed for insufficient amount-in-controversy may be refiled in state court)
DM Arbor Ct., Ltd. v. City of Houston, 988 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2021) (recognizing that a premature/unripe dismissal may be reinstated if the claim later ripens)
Bank of La. v. FDIC, 919 F.3d 916 (5th Cir. 2019) (prior Fifth Circuit decision affirming dismissal of the Bank’s constitutional claims for lack of district court jurisdiction)