Opinion ID: 2982611
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The June Bulletin

Text: Lewis argues that the district court erred in concluding that he failed to rebut NSRC’s assertion that it made a business decision to withdraw the June 1, 2009 bulletin based on changed circumstances. For the first time on appeal, Lewis asserts a “cat’s paw” theory of liability based on Hiser’s statement following the June 1, 2009 telephone call with Roskovics. Because Lewis did not raise this theory below, we will not consider it. See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Flowers, 513 F.3d 546, 552 (6th Cir. 2008) (“[A]n argument not raised before the district court is waived on appeal to this Court.”); see also Horner v. Klein, 497 F. App’x 484, 490 n.2 (6th Cir. 2012) (refusing to consider a cat’s-paw-theory argument raised for the first time on appeal).