“Country Club is a member of the Certified Class of Customers. As a member of that Class, it is and has been a party to this case.” Catalina sought a writ of superintending control from the New Mexico Supreme Court; but it was denied. {93} Catalina’s position is that the Country Club was an involuntarily joined, new party in the case and as such validly exercised its right to peremptorily challenge the district judge. The longed only to the Country Club. The Country Club did not appeal and is not a party before us and it has lost the right to challenge the trial court’s action in refusing to honor the challenge. Catalina cannot make the Country Club’s argument for it because the right does not belong to Catalina. See Pashaian v. Eccelston Props., Ltd., 88 F.3d 77, 82-83 (2d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). To allow Catalina to raise the issue in the
holding that an insurer lacked standing to raise the issue of the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement to which it was not a party holding that defendants did not have standing to vicariously raise an issue of judges partiality against plaintiff holding that a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal holding that there was no good cause to raise an untimely suppression issue where the defendant could have with due diligence discovered the information necessary to timely raise the issue holding that failure to raise an issue in an opening brief waives that issue