in Steele I. Steele argues that he could not have brought the current claims because, at the time Steele I was filed, he had not yet registered his sound recording with the United States Copyright Office. Steele does not, however, explain why he delayed the registration of his sound recording copyright. More importantly, as the defendants point out, Steele could have alleged copyright infringement based on unauthorized copying because such activities would have been in violation of his musical composition copyright which was registered at the time Steele I was filed. Steele has provided no compelling reason for his failure to do so and, as such, the Court finds that he should be precluded from raising such claims in a separate lawsuit. See Airframe Sys., Inc., 601 F.3d at 14-15, 18 (<HOLDING>). Steele argues that the issues in this case
holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause holding petitioners pro se status did not constitute adequate cause for failure to raise claims earlier holding that it was fair to apply claim preclusion because the plaintiff did not show good cause for failing to bring its claims in the earlier lawsuit holding that the concept of collateral estoppel cannot apply when the party against whom the earlier decision is asserted did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate that issue in the earlier case holding that district court did not abuse its discretion where it determined that plaintiffs failed to show good cause to amend complaint after dispositive motion deadline