A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on t he br i efs w i t houtor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 2,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT S HAUNN NE GL E Y,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. BREA DS O F THE W OR LD M E DI CA L P L AN; BR E ADS OF T HE W O R L D , L . L . C . , doi ng bus i nes s as Paner a B r ead,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 1415 ( D. C. No . 0 2 - c v - 8 4 0 - ZL W - P AC)

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HO LM ES , M c KAY , and BROR BY , C i rcui tJudg es. Shaunn N egl eyappea l s t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw i n favorof B r eads of the W or l d M edi cal Pl an ( B O W Pl an orPl an) and B r eads o f t h e W o r l d , L. L. C. ( BOW ) . W e e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1291 and AF F I RM .- 2- I . Backg r ound M r. N eg leyb eg an em p loy m en t w ith B O W in Ju n e 2 0 0 1 . B O W told M r. N egl eyhi s el i gi bi l i t ydat e forheal t h i ns ur ance t hr ough t he B O W Pl an w as J ul y1, 2001. B enef

i t s undert he B O W Pl an w er e ful l yi ns ur ed byM edi cal M utual of O hi o ( M M O ) . M M O i s nota part yt o t hi s act i on. B O W forw ar ded hea l t h pl an enr ol l m entm at er i al s t o M r . N egl eyon s ever al di ffe r entocca s i ons atvar i ous addr es s es , buthe di d notr ece i ve the mat er i al s unt i l Sept ember 28. A ft er s ubm i t t i ng hi s enr ol l m entfor m t o M M O on O ct ober8, M r . N egl eyw as enr ol l ed i n t he B O W Pl an effec t i ve N ovember 1, acc or di ng t o t he t er m s of the Pl an document s . B as ed on thateffect i ve dat e, M r . N egl eyw as s ubj ectt o a pr eexi s t i ng condi t i on excl us i on undert he Pl an fora number of m ont hs and, as a r es ul t , he in c u rr e d m e d ic a l e x p e n s e s th a t w e re n o t c o v e re d b yh is h e a lth in s u ra n c e . M r . N egl eyfi l ed thi s l aw s ui tagai ns tB O W and the B O W Pl an, s eeki ng damages forhi s l os tm edi cal benef i t s under§ 502( a) of the Em pl oy ee Ret i r ement I ncome Secur i t yA ctof 1974 ( E R I SA ) , 29 U . S. C . § 1132( a) . H e al l eged that B O W , as an ER I SA fi duci ary , vi ol at ed i t s dut i es t o pr oper l yt r ans m i theal t h pl an enr ol l m entm at er i al s t o hi m , t o advi s e hi m of appl i cabl e dea dl i nes fors ubm i t t i ng hi s enr ol l m entm at er i al s , and t o pr om pt l yenr ol l hi m i n t he B O W Pl an by su b m itti n g tho se m aterial s to M M O w ith in the d ea d li n es. A s a re su lto f B O W ’s al l eged br eac h of fi duci arydut y , M r . N egl eys oughtdamages , i ncl udi ng butnot l i m i t ed to m edical and rel at ed ex pen ses, as w el l as cost s, at t orney s’ fees,- 3-

pr ej udgm enti nt er es t , s t atut or ypenal t i es author i zed byE R I SA , and s uch otherand f u rth e r re lief

a s th e d istric t co u rt d e e m e d fit. M r . N egl ey ’ s cas e w as t r i ed t o t he courti n A pr i l 2004. D efe ndant s m oved fo r ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law a f ter th e c lo se o f

p lain tiff ’s e v id e n c e a n d a g a in fo llo w in g th e su b m iss io n o f a ll o f th e e v id e n c e . T h e ya rg u e d , in r e lev a n t p a rt, t hatt he moneydamages M r . N egl eys oughtw er e notr ecove r abl e on a br eac h of fi duci arydut ycl ai m underE R I SA § 502( a) ( 3) , w hi ch pr ovi des onl yfor “appr opr i at e equi t abl e r el i ef. ” The di s t r i ctcour ti ni t i al l ydeni ed the mot i ons and pr ocee ded t o m ake or al fi ndi ngs of fa ctand conc l us i ons of l aw , concl udi ng t hat B O W h a d b re a c h e d its fid u c iar yd u tyb yfa ili n g to p ro v id e c o m p lete a n d a c c u ra te i nfor m at i on aboutw hen M r . N egl ey ’ s benef i t s began unde rt he B O W Pl an and the deadl i nes r el at ed t o hi s enr ol l m ent . T he di s t r i ctcour tas ked the part i es t o confe r and agr ee on the amount of damages and a mannerbyw hi ch the moneycoul d be d is b u rs e d d ir e c tly to M r. N e g le y ’s m e d ic a l p ro v id e rs , ra th e r t h a n p a id to h im . T h e c o u rt d e fe rr e d e n tr yo f ju d g m e n t p e n d in g re s o lu tio n o f th e d a m a g e s is s u e s . W hi l e the pos t - t r i al br i efi ng pr ocee ded, defe ndant s r enew ed thei rm ot i ons forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw and s ubm i t t ed s uppl ement al author i t y , i ncl udi ng a T e n th C irc u it d e c isio n th a t h a d iss u e d sin c e th e c o n c lu sio n o f th e trial: C al l er

y v. Unit ed S t ates L i

f e Insurance C o. i n the C i t y of New York , 3 9 2 F . 3 d 4 0 1 (10 th C ir . 2004) . R el y i ng on C all ery , t he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed defendant s ’ m ot i ons for j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw and M r . N egl eyappea l ed.- 4- I I . D i s cus s i on I n a tr i al t o t he court , a mot i on forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw i s governed b yF e d . R . C iv . P . 5 2 (c ). See Ni et o v. Kapoor , 2 6 8 F . 3 d 1 2 0 8 , 1 2 1 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (no ti n g m o ti o n fo r j u d g m en t i n b en ch tr ial is go v ern ed b yR u le 52 (c), r athert han R ul e 50) . O n appea l of a Rul e 52( c) m ot i on, “[w ] e r evi ew t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s fac tfi ndi ngs forcl earerr orand i t s l egal concl us i ons de novo. ” Id. A . C om pensat ory D am ages I n C all ery , w e hel d t hatcompensa t or ydamages ar e notr ecove r abl e under § 5 0 2 (a )(3 ). 3 9 2 F .3 d a t 4 0 4 -0 6 . T h e d istric t co u rt h e ld th a t C all ery pr ecl uded t h e d a ma g e s r e l i e f

s o u g h tb yM r . Ne g l e yi n h i s c l a i m b a s e d u p o n t h a ts a me E R IS A se c tio n . M r. N e g ley co n ten d s th a t th e d istric t co u rt fa iled to p ro p e rly cons t rue § 502( a) ( 3) cons i s t entw i t h C ongr es s ’ s pr i m aryi nt entt o pr ovi de a s etof b ro a d , fle x ib le a n d c o m p re h e n siv e re m e d ies

– w h a t M r. N e g ley refe rs to a s a sa fe ty nett hatper m i t s m ake- w hol e r el i ef. Speci fi cal l y , he ar gues t hat§ 502( a) ( 3) s houl d be i nt erpr et ed cons i s t entw i t h t he pr i nci pl es of trus tl aw , underw hi ch equi t ycour t s t r adi t i onal l ycoul d r emedya br eac h of fi duci arydut ybyor der i ng t he paym entof m oney . T hus , M r . N egl eyas s er t s t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed by fa ili n g to a w a rd d a m a g e s fo r h is lo st m e d ica l b e n e fits a s a p p ro p ria te e q u itab le re lief u n d e r § 5 0 2 (a )(3 ). A s th e d istric t co u rt n o ted , h o w e v e r, th e se a rg u m e n ts w er e thor oughl yaddr es s ed–and r ej ect ed–i n t hi s cour t ’ s opi ni on i n C all ery . We w i l l notr evi s i tt hem her e.- 5-

N ordo w e bel i eve the di s t r i cterr ed byfai l i ng t o fi nd C all ery fa c tu a lly di s t i ngui s habl e fr om t hi s cas e. M r . N egl eyas s er t s t hatt he r el i ef the pl ai nt i ff s oughti n C all ery w as notbenef i t s undert he pol i cy , butm oneydamages fort he lo st o p p o rtu n ityto o b tain o th e r c o v e ra g e . T h is is a d istin c tio n w ith o u t a d iffe re n c e fo r p u rp o s e s o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s ru lin g . I n C all ery w e expl i ci t l ys t at ed, “To t he ext entM s . C al l erys eeks paym ent o f th e p o lic yp ro c e e d s , s u c h re lie f is b a rr e d u n d e r § 5 0 2 (a )( 3 ).” 3 9 2 F .3 d a t 4 0 5 . T he fa ctt hat M r. N egley ’s m easure of da m ages w as the v al ue o f his l ostben efi t s, r athert han the l os toppor tuni t yt o obt ai n t he s ame benefi t s el s ew her e, does not change t he ana l y s i s . H e, l i ke the pl ai nt i ff i n C all ery , s oughtm oneydamages f ro m d e fe n d a n ts d u e to a b re a c h o f fid u c ia ry d u ty. See C a lh o o n v . Tra n s Wo rld A i r l i nes , Inc. , 400 F. 3d 593, 598 ( 8 C i r . 2005) ( appl y i ng t he r eas oni ng of th C all ery and conc l udi ng t hatpl ai nt i ffs , w ho s ought“t o r ecove rt he equi val entof ful l pl an cove r age” due t o an al l eged br eac h of fi duci arydut y , coul d notr ecove r u n d e r § 5 0 2 (a )( 3 ); th e yw e re n o t s e e k in g “ a p p ro p ri a te e q u ita b le re lie f” ). M r. N eg leyalso arg u es th at th e d istri ct co u rterred in h o lding that m o n etary rel i ef i s never avai l abl e under§ 502( a) ( 3) . B utt he di s t r i ctcour tm ade no s uch rul i ng, and i n fac ti ts peci fi cal l ynot ed thatr es t i tut i on i s one r emedya pl ai nt i ff coul d pur s ue undert hats ect i on. H ow ever , t he di s t r i ctcour tr ecogni zed that resti tuti o n w as n o t ava il ab le i n this case b ec au se M r. N eg leyd id n o t seek return of anyamount s he had pa i d. N ordi d he al t ernat i vel ys eek t o r ecove rpar t i cul ar- 6-

f u n d s in d e fe n d a n ts ’ p o s s e s s io n . See C all ery , 392 F. 3d at406 ( not i ng r es t i tut i on av ail ab le un d er § 5 0 2 (a)(3) thro u g h co n stru cti v e trust or e q u it ab le l ien w h ere m o n eyca n b e trace d to p arti cu lar fu n d s in d efen d an t’ s p o sses sion ). W e the refo re a ffirm the d istri ct co u rt ’s co n clus ion that the c o m p en sato ry damages M r . N egl eys oughtar e notr ecove r abl e under§ 502( a) ( 3) for s ubs t ant i al l yt he r eas ons s t at ed i n t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or derand j udgm entof di s m i s s al dat ed A ugus t17, 2005. B . A l t ernat i ve E qui t abl e R em edi es M r. N e g ley arg u e s th a t ev e n if th e d istric t co u rt p ro p e rlyrejec ted h is c laim fo r d a m a g e s, it fa iled to c o n sid e r a n d g ra n t h is p ro p o se d a ltern a tiv e e q u itab le r emedi es . H e as s er t s t hathi s cl ai m w as r eal l yforr ei ns t at ement i n and/ or r eform at i on of the B O W Pl an, w i t h t he goal of r etur ni ng hi m t o hi s r i ght ful p o sitio n in th e P lan . H e c laim s th a t h e c o u ld re c o v e r m o n e yd a m a g e s in conj unct i on w i t h an equi t abl e or der , r el y i ng on A da m s v . C y p ru s A m a x Min e ra ls C o. , 149 F. 3d 1156, 1162 ( 10t h C i r . 1998) ( hol di ng underE R I SA § 502( a) ( 1) t hat th e re m e d yso u g h t is e q u itab le w h e n a “ c laim fo r m o n e tar yre lief is in e x trica b ly intertw ined w ith eq u it ab le reli ef”). T he di s t r i ctcour tdi d addr es s t he pos s i bi l i t yof r ei ns t at ement i n i t s or der and w e fi nd no err ori n i t s concl us i on t hatr ei ns t at ement w oul d nothave pr ovi ded M r . N egl eyw i t h t he ul t i m at e r el i ef he s ought . I ndeed, t he evi dence es t abl i s hed t hathe w as enr ol l ed i n t he Pl an as of N ovember 2001. T he di s t r i ctcour tdi d not- 7-

e x p re ss lya d d re ss M r. N e g ley’s re q u e st fo r re fo rm a tio n o f P lan d o c u m e n ts in its or der . H ow ever , des pi t e pr es s i ng fort hi s r el i ef i n hi s openi ng br i ef, M r . N egl ey ul t i m at el yconce des i n hi s r epl ybr i ef thatr eform at i on of the B O W Pl an w oul d be im p ro p e r. See R epl yB r . at13. W e agr ee. R e fo rm a tio n is a n e q u itab le r e m e d yu se d to re f ra m e w ritten c o n tra c ts t o r efl ectacc ur at el y[the] r eal agr eementbetw een c ont r act i ng par t i es w hen, ei t hert hr ough m utual m i s t ake oruni l at er al m i s t ake c oupl ed w i t h actual orequi t abl e fr aud byt he otherpar t y , t he w r i t i ng does not embodyt he contr actas actual l ym ade. Fis c h e rIma g i n gCo r

p . v . Ge n . El e c . Co . , 1 8 7 F . 3 d 1 1 6 5 , 1 1 6 9 -70 (10 th C ir . 1999) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) . T her e has been no s uch a lle g a tio n o r e v id e n c e in th is c a s e w ith re s p e c t to th e B O W P la n . See Nechis v. O xf or d Heal th P l ans , Inc. , 4 2 1 F .3 d 9 6 , 1 0 3 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (fin d in g n o e rro r in d istric t co u rt’s fa ilu re to g ra n t re fo rm a tio n u n d e r § 5 0 2 (a )(3 ) w h e re p lain tiff d id notal l ege a nypr operbas i s , i ncl udi ng fr aud, m utual m i s t ake ort er m s vi ol at i ve of E R IS A ). N onethel es s , M r . N egl eyas s er t s t hatt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of t he r emedi es avai l abl e under§ 502( a) ( 3) s t i l l l eftopen one e qui t abl e r emedyt hat t he courts houl d have gr ant ed: corr ect i on of hi s enr ol l m entdat e i n t he Pl an. T he di s t r i ctcour tdi d not e that , t o be el i gi bl e forbenef i t s undert he Pl an, M r . N egl ey w o u ld n ee d “a n o rde r r e q u i r i n gMM O to m a k e P lain tiff ’s e n ro llm e n t d a te re tro a c tiv e .” A p lt. A p p . at 1 7 9 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). M r. N e g ley do e s n o t d isp u te t hatt he courtcoul d notor derM M O t o do anyt hi ng, orot herw i s e t ake a ct i onD e fe n d a n ts c o n ten d th a t th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t er r in fa ili n g to g ra n t th is 1 re lief b e c a u se M r. N e g ley ne v e r so u g h t ito r a n yo th e r e q u itab le r e m e d yu n til a f ter th e trial. B u t th e yd o n o t as se rt th a t th e p ro o f a t trial fa iled to su p p o rt th is r el i ef ort hatt heyw oul d have offer ed othert es t i m onyorevi dence had M r . N egl ey ra is e d it e a rl ie r i n th e p ro c e e d in g s . See Fed. R . C i v. P. 54( c) ( “[E] veryfi nal ju d g m e n t sh a ll g ra n t th e re lief to w h ich th e p a rtyin w h o se fa v o r it is re n d e re d is en ti tl ed , ev en if t h e p artyh as n o t dem an d ed su ch reli ef in the p arty ’s p lea d in g s.” ); R eynolds v. Sl aught er , 541 F. 2d 254, 255- 56 ( 10t h C i r . 1976) ( r ej ect i ng defe ndant ’ s as s er t i on t hatpl ai nt i ff e l ect ed i r r evoca bl yt o s ue onl yfor damages and s peci fi c per for m ance and affi r m i ng di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof resti tuti o n co n sist en t w ith the p roo f u n d er R u le 54 (c)).

- 8- p u rpo rt ing to b ind M M O , b ec au se itw as n ev er a p artyto this ac ti o n . Itap p ea rs M r. N e g ley be liev e s th e d istric t co u rt sh o u ld h a v e sim p lye n ter e d so m e th in g in t he natur e of a nunc pr o tunc or derdeemi ng hi s enr ol l m entt o have oc curr ed on J ul y1, 2001, s ever al m ont hs ear l i ert han i tactual l ydi d. H e cont ends t hats uch an o rd e r w o u ld g iv e h im g ro u n d s to a ttem p t to p e rsu a d e M M O to re c o n sid e r its deni al of hi s cl ai m s form edi cal benef i t s . H e ci t es no cas e i n w hi ch s uch a re m e d yh a s b e e n g ra n te d u n d e r s im ila r ( o r a n y ) c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See Phi l l i ps v. C alhoun , 9 5 6 F .2 d 9 4 9 , 9 5 3 -5 4 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (n o tin g p a rtym u st s u p p o rt its arg u m en t w ith lega l auth o ri ty ). 1 W e conc l ude thatt he di s t r i ctcour tdi d noterri n fai l i ng t o gr antt hi s r el i ef b e c a u s e it h a d n o a u th o ri ty to d o s o . F ir s t, M r. N e g le yla c k e d s ta n d in g to s e e k it. I ti s appr opr i at e fort hi s cour tt o cons i dera s t andi ng i s s ue s ua s pont e b e c a u se it d ir e c tly im p lic a te s o u r A rt ic le II I j u ri s d ic tio n . See Uni t ed Stat es v. P ar ker , 362 F. 3d 1279, 1284 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) . U ndert he r edr es s i bi l i t yr equi r ement of- 9-

s t andi ng, a pl ai nt i ff mustdemonst r at e “a s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood t hatt he r el i ef r eques t ed w i l l r edr es s i t s i nj ur yi n fac t . ” Nova Heal th Sys . v. G andy , 416 F. 3d 1149, 1158 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . I n No v a He a l th S y s t e ms t hi s cour thel d t hati tw as “enti rel yspeculat i ve” w hethera j ud gm ent agai nstt he d efen dan t s w ou l d redress th e p la in tiff ’s inju ry b yd e te rr in g n o n -p a rt ie s f ro m ta k in g s im ila r a c tio n . Id. at 1159. “M or e funda m ent al l y , i tover l ooks t he pr i nci pl e thati tm us tbe the effec t o f th e c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t o n th e d e fen da n t t h a tr e d r e s s e s t h e p l a i n t i ff ’ s i nj u r y, w hetherdi r ect l yori ndi r ect l y . ” Id. ( emphasi s added) . M r . N egl ey ’ s r eques t ed rem edyw ou l d b e si m i l arl yspeculat i ve in t erm s of i t s abi l i t yt o p rovi de redress forhi s i nj ur y . Such a r emedyal s o w oul d run afoul of the l i m i t at i on t hatt he d i s t r i c tc o u r tc o u l d o n l ye n t e ra n o r d e rd i r e c t e d t o a ffe c t i n g t h e b e h a v i o ro f BO W a n d th e P lan , the o n lyd e fe n d a n ts b e fo re it. T h u s, M r. N e g ley ha d n o sta n d in g to s eek, and the di s t r i ctcour thad no author i t yt o ent er , s uch an or der , t he purpos e of wh i c h wa s t o a s s i s tM r . Ne g l e yi n p o s s i b l yg a i n i n g r e d r e s s fo rh i s i nj u r yf r o m a n o n - p a r t y. I n anyevent , t he di s t r i ctcour thad no author i t yt o ent eran or derw hi ch w o u ld h a v e a m o u n te d to a re w ri tin g o f h is to ry. See P at t on v. D enve rP os tC or p. , 326 F. 3d 1148, 1153 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng t hatnunc pr o tunc s t at e courtor der w as qual i fi ed domest i c r el at i ons or derunderE R I SA beca us e, among ot her rea so n s, itd id n o t “att em p t t o rew ri te historical fa cts”); W. N. J. v. Yocom , 257 F. 3d 1171, 1172 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) ( hol di ng t hatnunc pr o tunc or der“ca nnotM r . Ne g l e yma i n t a i n s i n h i s r e p l yb r i e f t h a th i s c a s e d i ffe r s f r o m C all ery 2 b e c a u se th e B O W P lan is a d e fe n d a n t. H e a ss e rts th a t th e d istric t co u rt sh o u ld h a v e o rd e re d th e B O W P lan to p a yh im h is lo st b e n e fits, in c o nju n c tio n w ith r evi s i on of hi s enr ol l m entdat e, and thatt he courts houl d t hen have fur t her or der ed B O W t o r ei m bur s e the Pl an pur s uantt o 29 U . S. C . § 1109( a) . W e dec l i ne to a d d re s s th e s e a rg u m e n ts m a d e fo r t h e fir s t tim e in h is re p ly b ri e f. See Stump v. G at es , 211 F. 3d 527, 533 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( r efus i ng t o cons i deri s s ue r ai s ed in itia lly in re p ly b ri e f ).

- 10- b e u se d to re w rite h isto ry ” ) (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ); s ee als o In r e D i Fr anco , 3 3 9 F . S u p p . 4 1 4 , 4 1 4 -1 5 (S .D .N .Y . 1 9 7 2 ) (d e n y in g p e tit io n e r’s m o tio n to a n ted a te th e a c tu a l o c c u rre n c e o f h is n a tu ra liza tio n ). A s th e c o u rt sta ted in D i Fr anco , “i ti s nott he func t i on of a nunc pr o tunc or dert o ant edat e the ac tual per for m ance of an a ct , t o s uppl yfac t s w hi ch neve rexi s t ed, ort o embodya fi ct i on th a t s o m e th in g w h ic h n e v e r h a p p e n e d d id a c tu a lly o c c u r.” 3 3 9 F . S u p p . a t 4 1 4 . T h ere fo re, w e h o ld tha t th e d istri ct co u rtd id n o t err i n fa il ing to g ran t M r. N egl ey ’ s r eques tt o “corr ect ” hi s enr ol l m entdat e i n t he Pl an. 2

C . P re ju d g m en t In ter est, A ttor n ey s’ F ee s a n d C o sts M r. N e g ley also c o n ten d s th a t th e d istric t co u rt sh o u ld h a v e g ra n ted h is r eques t s forpr ej udgm enti nt er es t , at t or ney s ’ fee s , and cos t s , des pi t e the fa ctt hat h e w a s n o t a w a rd e d a n yd a m a g e s a n d ju d g m e n t w a s e n te re d a g a in s t h im . D efe ndant s ar e corr ectt hatM r . N egl eyneverm ade thi s ar gum enti n t he di s t r i ct cour t . H e di d fi l e pos t - t r i al m ot i ons forat t or ney s ’ fee s and cos t s , aft ert he di s t r i ct cour ti ndi cat ed i t s i nt ent i on t o ent erj udgm enti n hi s favor . D efe ndant s as s er tt hat M r. N eg leyac tuallyw aive d h is cl aim fo r i n terest at tri al. R eg ard less o f M r.- 11-

N egl ey ’ s i ni t i al ar gum ent s t o t he di s t r i ctcour ton al l of thes e i s s ues , i ti s cl ear t hatonce the di s t r i ctcour tchange d cour s e and e nt er ed j udgm entagai ns thi m , he nevers oughtt hi s r el i ef a gai n befor e the di s tr i ctcour tas a non- pr evai l i ng par t y , or a s h e a rg u e s o n a p p e a l, a p a rtially -p re v a ili n g p a rty . T h e re fo re , w e d e c lin e to cons i derhi s ar gum ent s w i t h r es pectt o pr ej udgm enti nt er es t , at t or ney s ’ fee s , and c o s ts th a t h e ra is e s fo r t h e fir s t tim e o n a p p e a l. See Tel e- C om m c’ ns , Inc. v. C o m m ’r , 104 F. 3d 1229, 1233 ( 10t h C i r . 1997) ( “[A ] n i s s ue mustbe pr es ent ed t o, cons i der ed and de ci ded byt he tr i al cour tbefor e i tcan be r ai s ed on appe al . ”) (qu o tat ion s an d b rac k ets o m itted). I I I . C oncl usi on T he judgm ent of t he d i stri ctcou rti s AFF I RM ED . M r. N e g ley’s m o tio n to supp l em ent the ap pen dix i s GR ANTED ; an d d e fe n d a n ts’ m o tio n to file a su rre p ly bri ef i s DENI ED a s m o o t. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

J er om e A . H ol m es C i r cui tJ udge