Opinion ID: 859088
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The O & C Act

Text: D.R. Johnson also objects to the consent decree on the basis that the O & C Act precludes application of Survey and Manage to O & C timberlands. Appellees respond that D.R. Johnson waived this issue by failing to raise it adequately below. “We apply a general rule against entertaining arguments on appeal that were not presented or developed before the district court.” In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). “This principle accords to the district court the opportunity to reconsider its rulings and correct its errors.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). This rule also ensures that issues raised for the first time on appeal are not decided where “there may be facts relevant to the issue which were 16 CONSERVATION NORTHWEST V . SHERMAN not developed in the record.” Bolker v. Commissioner, 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 1985). In the proceedings below, D.R. Johnson only mentioned its theory that the O & C Act precluded application of Survey and Manage to O & C lands in its cross-motion for summary judgment, as part of its argument about the appropriate remedy. The argument was buried in the middle of a section entitled “A Permanent Injunction is not Warranted,” as part of a broader argument about weighing the equities. The district court never ruled on that issue when it granted Plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment, and D.R. Johnson failed to re-raise its argument when it opposed Appellees proposed consent decree. As a result, the order from which D.R. Johnson appeals contains no discussion of this argument. We therefore conclude that D.R. Johnson failed properly to raise the issue below; consequently, it is waived.