§4436

9); 18A Charles 4In making that argument, petitioner confuses Kaebel I and Kaebel II, attributing his motion to strike to the former when, in fact, he made it in the latter. - 14 - [*14] A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, sec. 4436 (2d ed. 2008). Petitioner appealed our decision dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no error in our determination that the notices of deficien

r lack ofjurisdiction does not bar a second action as a matter ofclaim preclusion, it does preclude relitigation ofthe issues determined in ruling on thejurisdiction question.'" (quoting 18 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure, sec. 4436 (1981))); Okoro v. Bohman, 164 F.3d 1059, 1063 (7th Cir. 1999) ("It may seem paradoxicalto suggest that a court can render a preclusivejudgment when dismissing a suit on the ground that the suit does not engage thejurisdiction ofthe court.