Opinion ID: 2993618
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: unpreserved claims

Text: It is axiomatic that issues raised for the first time on appeal will generally not be considered absent exceptional circumstances. In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 579 F.3d 241, 261 (3d Cir. 2009). Particularly when complex legal issues are presented, a reasonably detailed exposition of an argument in the district court is required to preserve 3 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 U.S.C. § 1132 and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The objectors argue that we should review the District Court’s approval of a class action settlement de novo because the challenges they advance – many of which were not made below and thus are unpreserved – involve requests that we fashion new legal standards. Under established law, however, we review a District Court’s approval of a class action settlement for an abuse of discretion. In re Cmty. Bank of N. Va., 418 F.3d 277, 298 (3d Cir. 2005). 5 the issue for appeal. Frank v. Colt Indus., Inc., 910 F.2d 90, 100 (3d Cir. 1990). Here, the objectors ask us to adopt an entirely new standard for approving non-pecuniary class action settlements and also ask us to direct district courts to follow a specific briefing schedule when entertaining such settlements. Contrary to the objectors’ protestations that they raised these issues below and that the District Court ruled on them “sub silentio” by approving the settlement (Opening Br. at 2-3), it is clear from the record that these issues were not raised, even obliquely, before the District Court.4 Accordingly, because the claims were not preserved and because no extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant our review of those claims, we will not consider them now.