under section thirty seven thirty c five of the f c a all parties including the district court in this case agree that the standard for issue pollution is whether the issue is that the finding must have been essential to the prior hold in this case the prior holding at issue is the modish on court's ruling and the modish on cases the one brought by the f d a i see a related case to the whether the mahayana court's ruling on whether connor should have been permitted to intervene in that case pursuant to rule twenty four of the federal rules of civil procedure the mahayana court held that  underlying loss and that the sub issue to that determination was whether the f d i c was proceeding as the government for terms of section thirty two thirty seven thirty or where they were proceeding at something other than th right that that's the issue in this case about whether this is an alternative remedy that he's entitled to a share right now we do have an identity of the issues and that was litigated and decided as  the related case as the government and that's actually the correct issue under section thirty seven thirty so if anything in this case there should have been issue preclusion in favor of carter nonetheless that additional finding that you raised your honor is cannot be the subject of issue for closure because it was an essential if you throw away all that talk about the f d i c proceeding out of the government you still have the same holding in the case the motion under rule twenty fourth of the rules was not timely it was four years later the marjon course discussion of that additional problem of rule twenty four  intervention was not necessary to determine the outcome of the case it was pure dicta well no it was not turning to the ground fully evaluated by the magistrate judge and not contested by you right and that's a that's a good point there are it wasn't contested by conner because if you were to simply appeal that case or that order the two issues of  timeliness and whether or not he had a particular interest in the case are inextricably intertwined if we appeal that will order then we're going to lose on time with us every time four years isn't time i can concede that well the issue wasn't decided yes just far because it wasn't essential to that work well it was it was an alternative ground i mean either either ground would suffice but if you thought that no one was legally flawed you had the option of taking an appeal to the district court or getting you objecting to the magistrate judge's ruling in the district court and getting that the scope of that ruling trimmed down if you wanted to preserve your options here and you didn't do that no we didn't because the by challenging that amendment one we would have lost in the time on this issue we would have never gotten to the interest issue and to if we would have prevailed we would have simply gotten a right to intervene in the case that would have been set so the government appealing that or it would be entirely futile and also when that order was read entered i read that as a holding as intervention not as of right but  you can't take the word right now but intervention not as a right but of a permissive thank you that the holding of the court was page eleven that connor had no right to intervene under twenty four a on grounds of timeliness so i really do believe that the continued going on past the discussion of timeliness holding the motion was denied because it wasn't timely then discussing other issues that aren't essential to the order precludes a later reliance on those additional findings as issue and the case cited by the this if a prior judgment is based on determinations of two separate issues as you alluded to your honor it is not for close of f to either of these issues standing alone in that general role of issue but pollution has been repeatedly adopted by the seventh circuit post magnus electronics most recently or not most recently but for example by baker vs potter in two thousand and six so even if you don't accept the argument that the march on ports discussion of the interest wasn't dicta then the decision still must be reversed and of this general principle because in this case marjon court arguably made two determination one that it was untimely and then two that didn't have an interest in litigation under the general as adopted by the circuit neither determination can have produce of effect when standing alone and that's exactly what the district court did in this case she looked only to the second remedy or the second determination regarding whether or not connor an interest in the litigation and she failed to even mention the previous in the primary finding that the motion was denied because it wasn't ti therefore this court's decision this case must be reversed so the can up connor can have the issue of the relator share finally an appeal settled in a judgment so that he can then appeal if he disagrees cat or sacrifice his entire career to blow the whistle on me to a bank for fraud that cost the united states or a hundred million dollars at the very least under the false claims act he deserves a final appeal will determination as to whether he is entitled to whistleblowers reward thank you ok thank you mr jones mr stevens good morning and i please the court duncan stevens on behalf of the federal deposit insurance corporation as receiver for mutual bank the district court in this case correctly applied the doctrine issue preclusion and correctly declined to reopen the issue of whether mr connor was intending to an alternate remedy recovery of the settlement reached in the matia case should this court reach the issue and we don't believe it needs  to it should find that that margin court correctly denied mr connor the alternate remedy recover his sorry on the issue of the question of issue preclusion let me begin where my colleague ended as my colleague said mr connors int leave to intervene is appealable by the intervenor as this court held in the city city of milwaukee case but he did not avail himself of that opportunity if you wanted to take up the issue of whether he was entitled to an alternate remedy share he had that he had that option he passed on it and the district court did not urge in saying we are not the quarter of a review we are not passing on to the correctness of the motion court's judgment that is for this now my colleague has argued that the that the discussion of the of the alternate remedy issue in the margin in the margin that just read to judge decision was dicta but with respect that discussion goes on for a full three pages generally direct in a court's opinion his is treated as such it usually tect is a short discussion that is proceeded with proceeded by some acknowledgement that the court is doesn't have to reach the issue but a simply it is simply noting the issue in passing for on for illustration or something else nothing about this this treatment of this alternate remedy issue in my case was it looks like ticked to me it's it it appears to be an the judgment is deemed precludes of as to each of the alternative grounds i don't have magnets before me but we stand by our second it's addition of magnus on this point and that in the rationale is obvious the court subsequently court shouldn't have to delve into well what was this one more important or was that there was that one more important when the court relies on multiple grounds for reaching a judgment it is because it s to each ground and that is what happened that's what happened in this case nor  and by committing gross negligence and the f t c brought suit to recover those losses and vindicate those harms under the bank but this he temp case like all the ten cases is about harm to the government it's about fraudulent statements to the government mr converse theory of the case was that the defendants some of the same defendants that not all had misstated had understated the bank's liability for deposit insurance premiums and that the bank of underpaid  us furthermore the defendants as i've suggested were different and the transactions were almost entirely non overlapping so on the record even if this court reaches that underlying issue of the alternate remedy it should find that the margin court was respect to whether or not the language was the discussion at page eight the judge preface it with here's another factor that warrants some discussion doesn't sound like he's going into an in depth review to me and the problem the concern remedy for that is in the district court and then an appeal if you're still on satisfied not of this not if that order doesn't serve as issued lucian then the remedy is to file a motion for determination of the later share which successful on that appeal would simply get us back into the march on court as an observer it wouldn't get us the remedy we we wanted it wouldn't get us a decision that the that congress entitled to or later share that's an issue that had to be decided