Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the court of appeals to comply with this Court's previous ruling in Semtek

QUESTION PRESENTED 1) Whether a writ of mandamus should issue ; directing the court of appeals to comply . : : with this Courts previous ruling in Semtek , . International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin : . . Corp., which held that “federal common : : law governs the claim-preclusive effect of a dismissal by a federal court sitting in . : diversity,” and that federal common law ; should be derived from “the law that would : ; be applied by state courts in the State in . . : which the federal diversity court sits.” 531 ; U.S. 497, 508 (2001)..? IN THE . SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES , PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS , RELIEF SOUGHT ‘ Pursuant to FRAP 21 and 28 U.S.C. § 1651, : Petitioner respectfully petitions for a writ of mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, requesting that the Eleventh ; _, Circuit be directed to remand this case to the district : court to proceed in a manner consistent with a decision for the Petitioner. . ISSUES PRESENTED ‘In Clements II, the 11‘ Cir. Court of Appeals refuses to comply with this Court’s ruling in Semtek ; and instead relies on its own interpretation. — : That decision denies Petitioner of an important right guaranteed by the State of Florida, that of the “manifest injustice” doctrine. In Clements I, the Petitioner was not able to add . any claims before it was dismissed, without the court acknowledging his request to amend to add claims. In Clements I, the District Court ruled that he did : not receive a full and fair opportunity to be heard. To wit, applying claim preclusion would be a “manifest . injustice” according to the State of Florida. See State . v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287, 291 (Fla. 2003). . FACTS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE PRESENTED BY THE PETITION oo Clearly, State Law must be applied to issue preclusion in Clements II because Florida recognizes the “manifest injustice” doctrine. The 11h Cir. own . citation of case law verifies this conclusion (See Page 13 of the ilth Cir. order). “The one purported So substantive difference between Florida and federal _. law that is highlighted by the parties is the existence, under Florida law, of equitable exceptions that militate against preclusion where the “ends of justice” or “manifest injustice” so require.” SFM Holdings, Ltd. v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 764 F.3d 1327, 1837 (iith Cir. 2014) (collecting and . comparing Florida and Eleventh Circuit preclusion . cases). ; ‘ Additionally, the 11% Cir. clearly applies the “full and fair opportunity to be heard” standard when : , applying the “manifest injustice” standard, (See Shell , v. Schwartz, 357 F. App'x 250 (11th Cir. 2009). It is apparent that since the District Court in Clements IT ‘ . ruled that Appellant did not receive a “full and fair opportunity to be heard” in Clements I that the : application of res judicata in Clements II would “defeat the ends of justice” and result in “manifest : injustice”. ; 2 Yet, confusingly, the 11th Cir. also claims that : . : it refuses to fashion a manifest injustice exception ; regarding res judicata or in this case, claim preclusion, “such exceptions do not exist under . federal preclusion law, as applied in this circuit”. See : . Maldonado v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 664 F.3d 1369, ; , 1375 (11th Cir.2011)). , , Other Federal circuits apply “manifest injustice” to claim preclusion: @ 1st Cir. -— Nevertheless, in the context of . : administrative proceedings, res judicata is not ; automatically and rigidly applied in the face of sO —_ contrary public policy. Quinones Candelario v. ; Postmaster Gen. of U.S. 906 F.2d 798 (ist Cir. . 1990) quoting Gregory v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 664, 666 (9th Cir. 1988). ; e 2nd Cir.United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 47 (1998). e 4th Cir. Grose v. Cohen, 406 F.2d 823, 824-25 (4th Cir. 1969). e 5th Cir. Ferguson v. Winn Parish Police Jury, a 589 F.2d 173, 176 n.6 (5th Cir. 1979). e 6th Cir. For example, res judicata should not be applied when it would result in a "manifest : injustic