a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is not a decision on the merits, it is conclusive as a direct estoppel on the jurisdictional issue actually decided. See IB Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 0.405[5] at III-46-48; Kendall v. Overseas Development Corp., 700 F.2d 536, 539 (9th Cir.1983); Miller v. United States, 603 F.Supp. 1244 (D.D.C.1985). Kitces, therefore, maintains the right to file her underlying claims in a court of competent jurisdiction. See Smith v. Pittsburgh Gage & Supply Co., 464 F.2d 870, 874 (3d Cir.1972) (dismissal of complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction did not bar later suit adding additional cause of action to initial claims which gave court proper jurisdiction); Magnus Electronics, Inc. v. La Republica Argentina, 830 F.2d 1396, 1400 (7th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Kendall v. Overseas Development Corp., 700
holding that seventh amendment right to jury trial not violated by courts dismissal for lack of jurisdiction holding that a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction only precludes the relitigation of the issue of whether the first tribunal had jurisdiction holding appealable dismissal on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction particularly where the plaintiff cannot cure the defect that led to dismissal holding that res judicata precludes relitigation of issue that was or could have been decided in enforcement order that was not appealed holding that the proper ground for dismissal of a  1983 action in which the plaintiff has failed to establish state action is lack of jurisdiction