ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Robert Whipple appeals the denial of his motions to suppress evidence. Whipple argued that law enforcement violated his Fourth Amendment rights when officers subpoenaed Walmart for his purchase history, searched his phone after the expiration of the warrant for his phone, and impermissibly seized his car. The district court denied Whipple’s motions. Finding no merit to these claims, we AFFIRM.

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Gina Moegle and her supervisor Susan Shaw, both employees of the Children’s Protective Services program in the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, appeal the district court’s partial denial of qualified immunity for eleven claims filed against various State of Michigan defendants by Mark Bambach and his minor children under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

We find that no clearly established law put the state defendants on notice that they were violating the Bambachs’ Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment rights. Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of summary judgment and REMAND for entry of an order dismissing the Bambachs’ claims against the state defendants.

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. Under the Bank Secrecy Act, individuals with foreign bank accounts containing $10,000 or more must annually file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (“FBAR”) with the U.S. Department of the Treasury. An individual who fails to file an FBAR by the deadline risks civil penalties. If the failure to file was accidental, the government can assess a penalty of up to $10,000. If, however, the failure to file was willful, the civil penalty grows exponentially.

The government sued James Kelly to recover civil penalties, claiming that Kelly willfully failed to timely file FBARs for 2013, 2014, and 2015. The district court granted summary judgment to the government. Because Kelly’s failure to file was a willful violation of the Bank Secrecy Act, we affirm.

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Insight Terminal Solutions, LLC (Insight) brought an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court against all the defendants named in this lawsuit, alleging claims that were dismissed with prejudice by the bankruptcy court based upon the parties’ stipulation to do so. Autumn Wind Lending, LLC (Autumn Wind) was not itself a party to the adversary proceeding, but it became the parent company of Insight prior to Insight initiating its lawsuit in the bankruptcy court.

The question before us is whether the doctrine of res judicata bars Autumn Wind from now bringing these same claims against the same defendants who were absolved of liability to Insight as part of the bankruptcy court proceedings. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court dismissing Autumn Wind’s claims on the basis of res judicata and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.