Opinion ID: 584512
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did Olin Raise the Second-Wave Claim in the District Court?

Text: 23 Hanover argues that Olin is precluded from making its argument regarding the second-wave lawsuits because the argument was not timely raised in the district court. See Thomas E. Hoar, Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp., 900 F.2d 522, 527 (2d Cir.1990) (generally, claims not raised in district court will not be addressed on appeal). In opposing Hanover's summary judgment motion, Olin did not make the specific argument regarding the second-wave suits. Rather it claimed that timely notice was given with regard to all the lawsuits. Olin raised the second-wave argument for the first time in a motion for modification filed two months after Judge Sand issued his opinion. 24 The district court correctly treated Olin's motion as a motion for reargument and denied it as untimely. See Local Civil Rule 3(j) (motions for reargument must be served within ten days of the court's docketing of its decision). Yet in denying the motion, Judge Sand also stated that even if timely, he would deny the motion as meritless since it seeks to recanvass issues already decided by the court. Because Judge Sand viewed the first-wave/second-wave distinction as merely a new spin on Olin's previous arguments, we will exercise our discretion to address it. 25