Opinion ID: 1264984
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Private Actor

Text: United asserts it is not a private actor suing the State in state court, but is, instead, an agent of the federal government not barred by the prohibitions of the Eleventh Amendment. We disagree. United's amended complaint alleges only that it is a nonprofit corporation organized under the State of Delaware General Corporation law and has the power to prosecute this suit. It does not allege the action is being brought on behalf of the federal government. Moreover, the Act does not explicitly provide that a guaranty agency stands in the shoes of the federal government in suits to force compliance with withholding orders. Additionally, United's argument is not preserved for review. Although United raised the issue to the Court of Appeals, it does not appear that the issue was raised to or ruled on by the trial court. See Mims v. Alston, 312 S.C. 311, 440 S.E.2d 357 (1994) (an issue neither raised to nor ruled upon by trial court will not be considered on appeal); Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 403 S.E.2d 122 (1991) (where a trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument raised and appellant makes no Rule 59 motion to obtain a ruling, the appellate court may not address the issue); Hoffman v. Powell, 298 S.C. 338, 380 S.E.2d 821 (1989) (an appellate court will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal). United's argument is not preserved and is otherwise without merit.