context: We do not address Curten's argument that he timely exercised his right of rescission under the Truth in Lending Act be cause Curten did not assert a rescission claim in his complaint and did not otherwise present this argument to the district court.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 626 F.3d 1014, 1019
citation_a.parenthetical: "These arguments are raised for the first time on appeal, and because they were never argued before the district court, we deem them waived."
citation_a.sentence: See Hillis v. Heineman, 626 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir.2010) (“These arguments are raised for the first time on appeal, and because they were never argued before the district court, we deem them waived.”); see also Baccei v. United States, 632 F.3d 1140, 1149 (9th Cir.2011) (“[This Court] will not reframe an appeal to review what would be in effect a different case than the one decided by the district court.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 632 F.3d 1140, 1149
citation_b.parenthetical: "[This Court] will not reframe an appeal to review what would be in effect a different case than the one decided by the district court."
citation_b.sentence: See Hillis v. Heineman, 626 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir.2010) (“These arguments are raised for the first time on appeal, and because they were never argued before the district court, we deem them waived.”); see also Baccei v. United States, 632 F.3d 1140, 1149 (9th Cir.2011) (“[This Court] will not reframe an appeal to review what would be in effect a different case than the one decided by the district court.”).