defendants. The sanctions were not related to Horizon’s ultimate success on its claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Saul.” Id. at 105 (citation omitted). Acadia raises a number of new issues in its briefing before this Court. For example, Acadia contends that the trial court’s sanctions order failed to specify the grounds for the sanctions. It also seems to assert that the new judge was not bound by the earlier, now-retired judge’s factual findings relating to Saul’s discovery misconduct and that the new judge failed to expressly rule on Saul’s post-trial motion for reconsideration. We hold that Acadia waived these issues by not raising them in the court of appeals. Tex. R. App, P. 53.2(f), 55.2; see also Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. DeMoranville, 933 S.W.2d 490, 493 (Tex. 1996) (<HOLDING>). As to the issue Acadia did preserve for
holding that matters not raised in an appellants briefing in the court of appeals are waived holding that arguments not raised in district court are waived holding that arguments not raised before the trial court are waived holding that claims not raised in an appellants initial brief to our court are waived holding an issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal