Accent Media, Inc. v. Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2223
___________________________
Accent Media, Inc.
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP; Eric Ratinoff Law Corp.; Cutter Law, PC; C.
Brooks Cutter
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
____________
Submitted: April 15, 2025
Filed: May 2, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before ERICKSON, ARNOLD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Years after Accent Media, Inc. finished helping Kershaw, Cutter &
Ratinoff, LLP process photos and videos for a class action the latter had filed, it
sued the law firm, one of the firm’s former attorneys, and two related law firms for
breach of contract to collect over three million dollars in bills it had never

-- 1 of 2 --

previously disclosed. The district court1 held that Accent had estopped itself from
pursuing its claim by holding back the bills and granted the defendants summary
judgment. Because Accent failed to oppose the application of the estoppel before
the district court and fails to persuade us to consider its belated opposition now,
we affirm.
The defendants devoted an entire section of their summary judgment brief to
the argument that Accent had estopped itself. Accent, however, made no response
to this argument and no mention of estoppel in its opposition brief. It therefore
forfeited, if it did not waive, any argument against application of the estoppel. See
Satcher v. Univ. of Ark. at Pine Bluff, 558 F.3d 731, 734–35 (8th Cir. 2009); Kan.
Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Blackwell, Sanders, Matheny, Weary & Lombardi, L.C.,
114 F.3d 679, 688 (8th Cir. 1997); Sandlin v. Dobson Cellular Sys., Inc., 265 F.
App’x 179, 181 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Since Accent has not shown that the
district court erred “beyond any doubt” in applying the estoppel or that “injustice
might otherwise result” if we declined to take up Accent’s argument on appeal, we
will not consider the one it offers here. See Ames v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 760
F.3d 763, 770 (8th Cir. 2014). So we will not disturb the district court’s judgment.
Affirmed.
______________________________
1The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --