United States Ex Rel. Lockey v. City of Dallas, 669 F. App'x 235

Relators Curtis Lockey and Craig MacKenzie (Relators) brought an FCA qui tam suit against the City of Dallas arising from their failed attempt to convert the LTV Tower into affordable housing (the LTV Project), alleging violations of federal civil‑rights obligations to affirmatively further fair housing.
In the first suit, the City and the Dallas Housing Authority moved to dismiss under the FCA public‑disclosure bar; the district court converted the motion to summary judgment after admitting Relators’ Joint Declaration and other exhibits and dismissed without prejudice.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding Relators were not an "original source" with sufficient firsthand knowledge because public disclosures dominated the alleged violations; it also rejected Relators’ Rule 60(b)(2) evidence as insufficient to show direct knowledge.
After denial of leave to amend, Relators filed a new complaint that narrowed the focus to their personal experiences with the LTV Project but was otherwise largely unchanged.
The City moved to dismiss the new action under Rule 12(b)(6) on issue‑preclusion and claim‑preclusion grounds; the district court dismissed primarily on issue preclusion and alternatively on claim preclusion.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding the new suit raised identical issues (public‑disclosure bar and original‑source status) that were actually litigated and essential to the prior judgment; therefore issue preclusion barred the relators’ action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the new suit is barred by issue preclusion	Relators: the new complaint focuses narrowly on their firsthand LTV Project experiences and therefore raises different, non‑precluded issues	City: the new suit reasserts the same public‑disclosure/original‑source issues already litigated and decided against Relators	Held: Issue preclusion applies — issues identical, actually litigated, and necessary to prior judgment; suit barred
Whether claim preclusion bars the new suit	Relators: the amended pleading raises distinct claims tied to personal experiences, not the broader claims dismissed earlier	City: the claim is the same substance as the prior action and could have been litigated previously	Held: Court did not reach merits after finding issue preclusion applicable (district court had alternatively found claim preclusion)
Whether Relators were an "original source" under the FCA public‑disclosure bar	Relators: their Joint Declaration and experiences show direct, independent knowledge sufficient to qualify as original sources	City: public disclosures predominated and Relators lacked independent, direct knowledge to overcome the bar	Held: Prior proceedings found Relators not an original source; that determination was essential to judgment and precludes relitigation

In re Southmark Corp., 163 F.3d 925 (5th Cir. 1999) (sets out the three‑factor test for issue preclusion)
Calhoun v. Hargrove, 312 F.3d 730 (5th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) accepting well‑pleaded facts as true)