#### Gail Knight STEINBECK, Personal representative of Thomas Myles Steinbeck; Blake Smyle, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Waverly Scott KAFFAGA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-56375

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*619Submitted November 13, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed November 16, 2017

Daniel Saunders, Partner, Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Blake Smyle, Pro Se

Susan J. Kohlmann, Alison I. Stein, Jenner & Block LLP, New York, NY, Andrew J. Thomas, Jenner & Block LLP, Los An-geles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Wa-verly Scott Kaffaga, Jean Anderson Boone, David Scott Farber, Anderson Farber King, Jebel Kaffaga, Bahar Kaffaga

Joshua G. Graubart, Esquire, Law Offices of Joshua Graubart, P.C., New York, NY, David W. Kesselman, Trevor Vincent Stoekinger, Kesselman Brantly Stockinger LLP, Manhattan Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Dramatists Play Service

Nicolas Andreas Jampol, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Elizabeth Anne McNamara, Esquire, Attorney, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee McIntosh *&*Otis, Inc.

Before: NGUYEN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and EATON,** International Trade Judge.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Appellants' motion for oral argument, Dkt. 64, is denied.

**

 Richard K. Eaton, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

This is a suit by descendants of John Steinbeck’s sons (the “Sons”) about their ability to terminate and exploit copyrights of Steinbeck’s literary works. The district court dismissed the action, finding it barred by collateral estoppel (issue preclusion), We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

As the district court correctly noted, the parties have already litigated the precise issues raised in this suit *‘‘ad*museum” in the Second Circuit. *See Steinbeck v. Steinbeck Heritage Found.,*400 Fed.Appx. 572 (2d Cir. 2010); *Penguin Grp. (USA) Inc. v. Steinbeck,*537 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2008). The Second Circuit squarely held that a 1983 Settlement Agreement is “unambiguous and forecloses any argument that the parties intended the [Sons] to retain control over” the “exploitation and/or termination of rights in the works of John Steinbeck.” *Steinbeck,*400 Fed.Appx. at 575. Moreover, a stipulated judgment entered in 2009 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York expressly provides that two of the termination notices at issue in this suit are invalid,1 and that the 1983 Settlement Agreement binds the parties. *See*Stipulation *&*Order with Respect to Counterclaims *&*Intervenor Complaint at 4, *Steinbeck v. McIntosh & Otis, Inc.,*No. 04-CV-5497 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2009), ECF No. 140.

The district court correctly concluded that the Sons already have fully litigated *620whether they have a right to issue and exploit copyright terminations of Steinbeck’s works, and that the prior litigation held that the Sons do not have those rights. *See Oyeniran v. Holder,*672 F.3d 800, 806 (9th Cir. 2012).2

AFFIRMED3

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Because the parties already actually litigated the validity of *The Red Pony*and *The Long Valley*termination notices, claim preclusion also applies. *See Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency,*322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003).

2

. The Sons fail to "specifically and distinctly” raise in their opening brief any argument about the district court’s dismissal of the claims for copyright infringement for *Of Mice and Men,*rights to *The. Grapes of Wrath*and *Tortilla Flat,*and the right to rescind the power of attorney granted to appellees and to terminate M & O as a literary agent. *Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc.,*797 F.2d 727, 738 (9th Cir. 1986). In addition to being barred by collateral estoppel, these issues are waived. *See id.*The Sons also argue for the first time on appeal that "[u]nder the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing [appellees] are required to pay [the Sons] the fair market value” for the license for a documentary of *The Grapes of Wrath.*Because this issue was not raised below, it is waived. *See Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp.,*953 F.2d 510, 515 (9th Cir. 1992).

3

. We grant appellees’ motion to take judicial notice, Dkt. 38.