manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived”). 18 . Delgado also raises a procedural objection to the district court's consideration of this claim in the first place. Because AstraZeneca failed to address this claim in its initial memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment, Delgado protests, the district court should not have considered its argument—raised for the first time in its reply— that it was entitled to summary judgment on this claim. Although it's true that courts routinely preclude a litigant from raising new arguments in a reply brief, this rule is not inflexible; courts retain discretion to excuse parties from procedural gaffes such as this. Cf. United States v. Torres-Rosario, 658 F.3d 110, 116 (1st Cir. 2011) (<HOLDING>). And we discern no abuse of discretion here.
recognizing that courts may excuse waivers and disregard stipulations where justice so requires holding that speedy trial act requires that an ends of justice continuance be specifically limited in time holding that courts may only review claims for fundamental miscarriage of justice holding that jury trial in civil cases is not so fundamental to the american system of justice as to be required of state courts by due process holding that a trial courts findings should be disturbed only if they are so clearly mistaken that the interests of justice demand intervention and correction