suggesting that any of these royalties derive from the inclusion of Change Gone Come in the albums. Bridgeport’s first amended complaint alleges liability on the part of Universal based only on the inclusion of Change Gone Come in “Well Connected” and “Dead Man Walkin.” To the extent Bridgeport seeks to expand its claims to assert new theories, it may not do so in response to summary judgment or on appeal. See e.g., Harvey v. Great Seneca Fin. Corp., 453 F.3d 324, 329 (6th Cir.2006) (“Allowing [plaintiff] to present a new theory of her case on appeal that was not alleged below would permit her two bites at the apple, a practice that would be very disruptive of orderly trial procedure.”); Tucker v. Union of Needletrades, Indus. and Textile Employees, 407 F.3d 784, 788 (6th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Mich. Bell Tel. Co. v. Strand, 305 F.3d 580,
holding that a party may not raise a new claim in its response to a dispositive motion holding that a plaintiff may not raise a new legal claim in response to summary judgment holding that a party may not raise a claim on appeal that was not presented to the trial court holding that arguments not presented to the district court in response to a motion for summary judgment are waived holding movant may not raise new grounds for summary judgment in reply to nonmovants response