and formation of such agreements.”) (citation omitted). All of the agreements executed by the parties provide that the law of the state of New York would be control ling. (DE 54, exh. A, ¶ 26; DE 54, exh. B, ¶ 29; DE 59, exh. A, ¶ 10(j)). However, only LBEG cites any New York law in its pleadings. (DE 60, pgs. 2-8). Although Brasner and AXA cite opinions issued by a number of different courts, neither Brasner nor AXA cite any New York law. (DE 54, pgs. 2-15; DE 88, pgs. 2-8; DE 89, pgs. 2-15). Choice of law provisions can be waived where the parties fail to raise the issue with the Court either by objection or by failing to cite to the law provided for in the choice of law provision. See Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assoc., Inc., 763 F.2d 1237, 1238-1239 (11th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Aetna Bus. Credit, Inc.,
holding the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying local rules that excluded some of the material facts offered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment holding that claims raised for the first time in an opposition to a motion for summary judgment are not properly before a court holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion holding that the trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to alteramend judgment where the plaintiff raised the choice of law issue for the first time after the entry of summary judgment