Opinion ID: 819756
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Are the Guarantees Assumed Valid?

Text: Relying on a Sixth Circuit case, Plaintiffs argue that the district court was required to assume the guaranties were validly issued by BNI for the purpose of determining jurisdiction. See Aplt. Open. Br. 24–25 (citing DRFP L.L.C. v. Republic Bolivariana de Venezuela, 622 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2010)). In DFRP, the plaintiff was the holder of two notes allegedly issued by the government of Venezuela but which Venezuela refused to honor on the grounds they were forged. 622 F.3d at 515. In denying Venezuela’s motion to dismiss, the court explained, “Despite Venezuela’s insistence that the notes are forgeries, we must assume, for purposes of deciding the jurisdictional issues before us, that they are valid.” Id. We are not persuaded. When the Sixth Circuit assumed the validity of the notes, it was in the context of a motion to dismiss. See id. at 514–15. Assuming validity based on allegations in a complaint is different from assuming it when it is challenged on summary judgment. See DRFP L.L.C. v. Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela, No. 2:04-cv-793, 2009 WL 414581, at  (S.D. Ohio Feb. 13, 2009). Of course, on summary judgment, we do not rely solely on pleadings. Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) with Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). Moreover, Plaintiffs never raised this argument before the district court, and it is therefore waived. -8- See Cummings v. Norton, 393 F.3d 1186, 1190 (10th Cir. 2005).