context: Nor did they present in their opposition to the dismissal motion any developed argumentation as to how additional discovery might advance their cause. Consequently, they forfeited the point.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 116 F.3d 962, 964
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that plaintiffs who fail to preserve their rights below cannot appeal on the ground that they were denied jurisdictional discovery
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Slade, 980 F.2d 27, 30 (1st Cir.1992) (“It is a bedrock rule that when a party has not presented an argument to the district court, she may not unveil it in the court of appeals.”); see also Sunview Condo. Ass’n v. Flexel Int’l, Ltd., 116 F.3d 962, 964 (1st Cir.1997) (holding that plaintiffs who fail to preserve their rights below cannot appeal on the ground that they were denied jurisdictional discovery).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 980 F.2d 27, 30
citation_b.parenthetical: "It is a bedrock rule that when a party has not presented an argument to the district court, she may not unveil it in the court of appeals."
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Slade, 980 F.2d 27, 30 (1st Cir.1992) (“It is a bedrock rule that when a party has not presented an argument to the district court, she may not unveil it in the court of appeals.”); see also Sunview Condo. Ass’n v. Flexel Int’l, Ltd., 116 F.3d 962, 964 (1st Cir.1997) (holding that plaintiffs who fail to preserve their rights below cannot appeal on the ground that they were denied jurisdictional discovery).