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

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 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 Exaon Mobil and apply its own now discarded standard in Amos v. Glynn County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 347 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., 185 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 i 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?