
    RITCHIE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., Ritchie Capital Management, Ltd., & Ritchie Special Credit Investments, Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    15-3294
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 1, 2016
    FOR APPELLANTS: ALEXANDRA A.E. SHAPIRO (with Cynthia S. Arato & Fabien Thayamballi on the brief), SHAPIRO ARATO LLP, New York, New York; also oil the brief: Leo V. Leyva & James T. Kim, Cole Schotz P.C., New York, New York.
    FOR APPELLEE: GREGG L. WEINER (with Adam M. Harris on the brief), ROPES & GRAY LLP, New York, New York; also on the brief: Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, Ropes & Gray LLP, Washington, D.C.
    
      FOR AMICUS CURIAE THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Andrew J. Pincus, Archis A. Parasharami & Matthew A. Waring, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, D.C.; Kate Comerford Todd, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, Washington, D.C.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, REENA RAGGI, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellants Ritchie Capital Management, L.L.C., Ritchie Capital Management, Ltd. and Ritchie Special Credit Investments, Ltd. (“Ritchie”) appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Broderick, J.), granting defendant-appellee Costco Wholesale Corporation’s (“Costco”) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Ritchie’s sole argument on appeal is that Costco is subject to general personal jurisdiction because it registered to do business in New York. It is undisputed that Ritchie did not raise this argument below; it is forfeited. See Spiegel v. Schulmann, 604 F.3d 72, 77 n.1 (2d Cir. 2010) (“On appeal, the [plaintiffs argue that [the company] was- subject to the district court’s personal jurisdiction because the company had registered to do business in New York State. Although such registration would have been sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, the [plaintiffs did not raise this argument before the district court and thus, it is waived.” (internal citation omitted)).

Seeking to avoid this result, Ritchie relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519, 534, 112 S.Ct. 1522, 118 L.Ed.2d 153 (1992). Such reliance is misplaced. In Eastman Kodak Co. v. STWB, Inc., 452 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2006), this Court interpreted Yee as supporting the unremarkable proposition that “this court ordinarily will not hear arguments not made to the district court. But appeals courts may entertain additional support that a party provides for a proposition presented below.” Id. at 221 (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted). We decline to entertain Ritchie’s belated argument; Ritchie has presented no explanation for why it did not make this argument before the district court, or why it would be a “manifest injustice” if Ritchie is prevented from blindsiding Costco on appeal. Sniado v. Bank Austria AG, 378 F.3d 210, 213 (2d Cir. 2004).

For the foregoing reasons, as we are not reaching Ritchie’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 
      
      . This conclusion may no longer be sound in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 746, 751, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 (2014); we express no view one way or the other on the underlying merits of Ritchie’s argument.
     