new complaint for abuse of discretion). However, the application of res judicata and collateral estoppel are conclusions of law that we review de novo. Davis v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 383 F.3d 309, 313 (5th Cir.2004) (“The res judicata effect of a prior judgment is a question of law that we review de novo.”); Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., LLC, 234 F.3d 863, 868 (5th Cir.2000) (“The application of collateral estoppel is a question of law that we review de novo”). As he did before the district court, Ar-izpe argues on appeal that res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply because a jury never heard his cases. But a jury trial is not a prerequisite to the application of claim and issue preclusion principles. See, e.g., Duffie v. United States, 600 F.3d 362, 372 (5th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); Duffy & McGovern Accommodation Servs. v. QCI
holding that previous ordered entered with prejudice did not have preclusive effect holding that the appealability of a judgment  does not hinder its preclusive effect recognizing preclusive effect of judgments notwithstanding pending appeal or collateral attack holding that an agreed decision in tax court had preclusive effect holding that illinois federal court erred in giving preclusive effect to minnesota state courts dismissal of action on statute of limitations grounds based on minnesotas treatment of statutes of limitations as procedural in nature and without preclusive effect