state court proceedings would be warranted when “the new suit was merely a refiling of the old suit in ‘an attempt to subvert the purposes of the [federal statute granting jurisdiction]’ ”), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 948, 117 S.Ct. 359, 136 L.Ed.2d 250 (1996). We find it dispositive that the district court based its injunctive relief on appellants’ lack of standing to bring suit, because (1) lack of standing does constitute a final judgment for res judicata and collateral estoppel purposes, and (2) standing is determined by procedural rules. See Nor-West Cable Comm. Partnership v. City of St Paul, 924 F.2d 741, 746-47 (8th Cir.1991) (classifying standing as an appealable procedural issue reviewed for clear error); see also Dresser v. Backus, 229 F.3d 1142 (4th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Summit Medical Assoc., P.C., v. Pryor, 180
holding that res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to arbitration award holding that res judicata prevents relitigation of a claim that was previously the subject of a valid and final decision of this court holding that because relitigation of issue was barred by collateral estoppel res judicata determination of finality of judgment dismissed for lack of standing was not relevant holding that res judicata precludes relitigation of issue that was or could have been decided in enforcement order that was not appealed holding that a summary judgment is a determination on the merits for res judicata and collateral estoppel purposes