in light of the bankruptcy court’s pre-Stern v. Marshall holding that it had authority to adjudicate the claims because they were core, and its post-Stern v. Marshall holding that it had' authority to adjudicate the claims because Skyline had consented. See J.A. 143 (pre-Stern v. Marshall holding); Empire State Bldg. Trust Co. v. N.Y. Skyline, Inc. (In re N.Y. Skyline, Inc.), 471 B.R. 69, 78-80 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2012) (post-Stern v. Marshall holding). Simply put, Skyline twice objected to the bankruptcy court’s; authority, and the bankruptcy court twice rejected its arguments. Under those circumstances, Skyline’s acquiescence to the bankruptcy court’s rulings does not establish unambiguous consent, waiver, or forfeiture. See Jacques v. DiMarzio, Inc., 386 F.3d 192, 201 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. Branen, 17 F.3d 552, 557 (2d
holding an argument waived in part because the party failed to develop it in the district court holding the government waived its argument on appeal that the defendant did not have standing to challenge a search when it failed to raise the argument to the district court holding argument not waived for failure to object where party previously raised argument and district court considered and rejected it holding that argument raised at oral argument that was not included in brief is waived holding that argument not raised in opening brief is waived