Opinion ID: 2783176
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to Determine

Text: In Associated Bank’s memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss, it also urged dismissal pursuant to the doctrines of res judicata and in pari delicto. The district court did not reach these issues because it dismissed the receiver’s complaint for failure to state a claim. In its appellate brief, Associated Bank renewed the two arguments as alternative bases for affirmance. The receiver then filed a “motion to determine whether issues raised by [Associated Bank] without having filed a cross- -12- appeal are within the scope of this appeal,” claiming Associated Bank should have filed a cross-appeal for this court to consider either of the alternative bases for dismissal. The U.S. Supreme Court informs us when a cross-appeal is needed: “[A] party who does not appeal from a final decree of the trial court cannot be heard in opposition thereto when the case is brought there by the appeal of the adverse party. In other words, the appellee may not attack the decree with a view . . . to enlarging his own rights thereunder.” United States v. Am. Ry. Exp. Co., 265 U.S. 425, 435 (1924). “But it is likewise settled that the appellee may, without taking a crossappeal, urge in support of a decree any matter appearing in the record, although his argument may involve an attack upon the reasoning of the lower court or an insistence upon matter overlooked or ignored by it.” Id.; see also Spirtas Co. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 715 F.3d 667, 670-71 (8th Cir. 2013) (explaining when a party “is attempting only to sustain the same judgment on a different basis in the record, a cross-appeal is not required”). The receiver alleges a judgment of dismissal on the basis of res judicata “would enlarge [Associated Bank’s] rights under the judgment” because it would allow Associated Bank to “contend that all future hypothetical counts whose gravamen is the Bank’s assistance in defrauding investors — no matter what form, and regardless of whether it is ripe or presently-knowable — would be barred.” The receiver also proposes “[a] judgment of in pari delicto” would allow Associated Bank “to contend that all hypothetical claims of any form by any of the Receivership entities — even those that are not yet ripe because they are hidden by the Bank’s concealment, thus tolling any limitations period — would be doomed.” The receiver “confuses a party’s rights under a judgment . . . with preclusive effects that the judgment might have in future proceedings.” Jennings v. Stephens, 574 U.S. ___, ___, 135 S. Ct. 793, 799 (2015). “Whenever an appellee successfully -13- defends a judgment on an alternative ground, he changes what would otherwise be the judgment’s issue-preclusive effects. Thereafter, issue preclusion no longer attaches to the ground on which the trial court decided the case, and instead attaches to the alternative ground on which the appellate court affirmed the judgment.” Id. No cross-appeal was required for Associated Bank to suggest alternative bases for the same judgment the district court issued—dismissal of the complaint.