Environmental Law – SDWA — appeal

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Environmental Law – SDWA — appeal

Where the defendant did not raise his appellate issues before the district court, the appeal must be dismissed.

“Now for the first time on appeal he advances a new theory: the campground does not have fifteen service connections. According to Ronald, each of the fifty or more campsites on the property has its own spigot, but these spigots are not service connections. Ronald argues by analogy that the campground is like a single-family home that may have many faucets, but is still not considered a public water system for purposes of the SDWA. The merits of Ritz’s new argument raise an interesting question, but we need not consider it because this line of argument was never developed below. As we have cautioned time and again, ‘it is a well-settled rule that a party opposing a summary judgment motion must inform the trial judge of the reasons, legal or factual, why summary judgment should not be entered. If it does not do so, and loses the motion, it cannot raise such reasons on appeal.’ Domka v. Portage County, 523 F.3d 776, 783 (7th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Fednav Int’l Ltd. v. Continental Ins. Co., 624 F.3d 834, 841 (7th Cir. 2010); Pole v. Randolph, 570 F.3d 922, 937 (7th Cir. 2009). Because the specific theory Ronald now urges was never actually presented to the district court, we find it waived for purposes of this appeal.”

Dismissed.

11-3320 U.S. v. Ritz

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Lawrence, J., Williams, J.