Opinion ID: 2513200
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Clary Manager's Request for Relief from Liability

Text: The Clary interests also argue that the vessel manager, MST Mineralien Schiffahrt Spedition und Transport GmbH (MST), should not be held liable because the district court made no independent findings either that MST was an alter-ego of the owner or that MST exhibited independent negligence, as required under Quinn v. Southgate Nelson Corp., 121 F.2d 190 (2d Cir.1941) and Romero v. Garcia & Diaz, Inc., 286 F.2d 347 (2d Cir. 1961). The Clary interests argue that the district court merely classified both the Owners and the vessel managers as one and the acts of negligence found by the lower court were linked to the responsibility of the owners, not the managers. The Clary interests did not raise this argument in the district court, and we decline to consider it in light of the well-established general rule that a court of appeals will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120-21, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976); see also Virgilio v. City of N.Y., 407 F.3d 105, 116 (2d Cir.2005).