CHRISTOPHERSON v. BUSHNER LLC (2022)

In their petition for panel rehearing, the Christophersons now argue that they should be allowed to amend their complaint. They previously did not seek this alternative relief on appeal. Because the Christophersons did not raise this ground for relief earlier, they waived the issue. See Ames v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 760 F.3d 763, 764 (8th Cir. 2014) (“Panel rehearing is not a vehicle for presenting new arguments, and we do not ordinarily consider arguments raised for the first time in a petition for rehearing.”) (quoting Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 606 F.3d 985, 993 (8th Cir.2010)); In re Hen House Interstate, Inc., 177 F.3d 719, 724-25 (8th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (declining to consider issue raised for first time at rehearing en banc), aff'd on other grounds sub nom. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1, 120 S.Ct. 1942, 147 L.Ed.2d 1 (2000); see also Anderson v. Beatrice Foods Co., 900 F.2d 388, 397 (1st Cir. 1990) (denying petition for panel rehearing and holding that a party—who failed to assert argument in previous briefing and oral argument before panel—“cannot be permitted to raise a new issue for the first time on petition for rehearing in the court of appeals”).

Further, it appears that the Christophersons’ proposed amended complaint— which the district court denied—would not change this Court's Opinion, and the Christophersons do not now identify any specific allegations they would add to a revised complaint.

* * * * * * *

The petition for panel rehearing is denied.

PER CURIAM.