estopped— the applicable res judicata doctrine — from raising the jurisdictional issue here. We recently addressed whether a party could relitigate in an attorney’s fee proceeding the determination of subject matter jurisdiction in the underlying action. See Zambrano v. INS, 282 F.3d 1145, 1151 (9th Cir.2002), as amended, 00-16191, 302 F.3d 909, 2002 WL 2012583 (Sept. 4, 2002). We explained that the district court had “fully decided the issue of jurisdiction, and that judgment has now become final.” Id. Accordingly, we held, consistent with “tra ditional notions of issue and claim preclusion,” that the plaintiffs could not relitigate jurisdiction in the fee proceedings. Id; see also Carpenters S. Cal. Admin. Corp. v. Knight (In re Knight), 207 F.3d 1115, 1116, 1117 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Similarly here, Plaintiffs cannot reliti-gate
holding the court lacked jurisdiction where the defendant failed to file a notice of appeal on the attorneys fee issue because a supplemental notice of appeal is required for us to have jurisdiction over an attorneys fees issue that becomes final subsequent to the initial notice of appeal holding that in the attorneys fee proceeding we must accept as true the district courts determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case because the plaintiff did not appeal the dismissal holding an intervenor in the underlying district court case lacked article iii standing to pursue an appeal where the only remaining controversy in the suit was a dispute over the award of attorneys fees because the fee award was wholly unrelated to the subject matter of the litigation holding after we found standing following a district courts dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction that the merits will be for the district court to decide on remand holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties