Opinion ID: 2085168
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alternative Defenses

Text: In his motion for summary judgment, Phillips lodged several alternative defenses, including (1) truth and (2) lack of a cause of action under the unlawful dissemination statute. The district court did not acknowledge these arguments and did not rule upon them. In his answer and a subsequent pleading, Phillips also claimed he was entitled to a qualified immunity, insofar as he made a good faith statement on an issue about which he had a duty. See Buckley, 509 U.S. at 273, 113 S.Ct. at 2616, 125 L.Ed.2d at 226 (when a prosecutor `functions as an administrator rather than as an officer of the court' he is entitled only to qualified immunity) (quoting Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431 n. 33, 96 S.Ct. at 995 n. 33, 47 L.Ed.2d at 144 n. 33). See generally Barreca v. Nickolas, 683 N.W.2d 111, 121 (Iowa 2004) (discussing qualified privilege in defamation cases and adopting New York Times definition of actual malice). On appeal, Phillips only reasserts the two arguments raised in his motion for summary judgment. We therefore do not decide whether Phillips is entitled to a qualified immunity. As for Phillips's other defenses, in a number of cases we have upheld a district court ruling on an alternative ground, provided it was urged in that court. DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56, 61 (Iowa 2002); see, e.g., Interstate Power Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 603 N.W.2d 751, 756-58 (Iowa 1999); Regent Ins. Co. v. Estes Co., 564 N.W.2d 846, 848-49 (Iowa 1997); Krohn v. Judicial Magistrate Appointing Comm'n, 239 N.W.2d 562, 563 (Iowa 1976). Our language in those cases clearly indicates, however, the decision to do so remains within our discretion. See, e.g., DeVoss, 648 N.W.2d at 62 (noting we have used language to the effect that `we may affirm the ruling on a proper ground urged but not relied upon by the trial court' (emphasis added) (quoting Krohn, 239 N.W.2d at 563)); Hawarden, 589 N.W.2d at 252 (we may affirm on any basis appearing in the record and urged by the prevailing party (emphasis added, internal quotation omitted)). In this case, we think it is more appropriate to remand this case for further proceedings in the district court, where the arguments of the parties, as well as the record, can be more fully developed in light of our ruling.