NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 

23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, 

as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties 

and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's 

decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire 

court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. 

A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 

2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted 

above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 

n.4 (2008).

1

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

22-P-1060

HARRIS AUTO BODY, INC., & others1

vs.

THE COMMERCE INSURANCE COMPANY & others.2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The plaintiff, Harris Auto Body, Inc. (Harris), appeals 

from a Superior Court judgment dismissing its complaint for 

declaratory judgment against the defendant, The Commerce 

Insurance Company (Commerce), under the doctrine of issue 

preclusion. We affirm.

Background. This case stems from prior litigation 

initiated in August 2018, wherein Commerce filed a complaint in 

Worcester Superior Court alleging fraud and other counts against 

Harris (the Worcester action). Eventually, the parties entered 

into a settlement agreement in the Worcester action. On 

November 10, 2020, Commerce filed a motion to enforce the 

1 Douglas Haddad and Alexander Haddad.

2Accurate Collision, Inc., ADH Collision of Boston, Inc., and 

Adam Haddad.
2

settlement agreement. On March 10, 2021, a Superior Court judge 

(Worcester action judge) issued a comprehensive memorandum and 

order allowing the motion to enforce the settlement agreement 

(March 10 order). On March 15, 2021, the Worcester action judge

issued a thirty-day nisi order for entry of a judgment of 

dismissal, allowing the parties time to file an agreement for 

judgment or stipulation of dismissal.3 On April 9, 2021, before

expiration of the nisi period and entry of judgment, Harris 

filed a notice of appeal from the March 10 order. On or about 

April 16, 2021, Commerce responded by filing a motion for entry 

of judgment in accordance with the settlement agreement and the 

March 10 order. On July 2, 2021, the Worcester action judge 

stayed action on the motion for entry of judgment, "pending 

decision from the Appeals Court" on Harris's appeal from the 

March 10 order.

On September 15, 2021, a single justice of this court 

entered the following order with respect to Harris's appeal from

the March 10 order:

3 The order for entry of dismissal nisi stated, in relevant part:

"It is ordered that an AGREEMENT FOR JUDGMENT or 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL, be filed in the Clerk's office by 

04/14/2021.

"If said Agreement or Stipulation is not filed by said date 

the Clerk is hereby directed to prepare, sign and enter 

Judgment dismissing the Complaint, and all other claims, 

without prejudice and without statutory costs."
3

"Although [Commerce] has raised the issue of this court's 

jurisdiction over the appealed order in the absence of a 

final judgment, a review of the record indicates that on 

03/10/2021 a Superior Court judge allowed the plaintiff's 

'emergency motion to enforce settlement entered into by the 

defendants' effectively concluding this litigation. 

Accordingly appellate proceedings are ordered STAYED to 

10/15/2021 and the Superior Court is granted leave to rule 

on [Commerce's] motion for entry of judgment. . . . Upon 

entry of a judgment in accordance with the 03/10/2021 order 

or other judgment of dismissal of the plaintiff's 

complaint, the appellants may file a new notice of appeal 

for consideration by the Appeals Court."

Thereafter, on October 12, 2021, the Worcester action judge

denied Commerce's motion for entry of judgment and dismissed the 

matter without prejudice. The Worcester action judge's order 

stated:

"The court found that the parties entered into a settlement 

agreement. The terms of the agreement are set forth in the 

Memorandum of Decision and Order dated 3/10/21. An order 

for entry of dismissal nisi entered on 3/15/21. The order 

has expired, and as no stipulation or agreement for 

judgment has been filed, this matter is DISMISSED without 

prejudice and without statutory costs, pursuant to the 

order for entry of dismissal."

On October 14, 2021, judgment entered dismissing Commerce's 

complaint in the Worcester action "pursuant to [the October 12, 

2021] Order."

Also on October 14, 2021, the Appeals Court issued an order

further staying appellate proceedings with respect to Harris's

appeal from the March 10 order to November 19, 2021, and 

ordering the parties to file a status report "as to whether 

judgment has entered in the trial court and whether a new notice 
4

of appeal has been filed." Instead of filing a status report or 

a new notice of appeal from the judgment of dismissal in the 

Worcester action, on November 18, 2021, the parties filed a 

stipulation of dismissal of Harris's appeal.4

Meanwhile, on November 12, 2021, Harris filed a complaint 

in Middlesex Superior Court seeking a declaratory judgment 

regarding the enforceability and terms of the settlement 

agreement as set forth in the March 10 order (the present 

action). In response, Commerce filed a motion to dismiss for 

failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted,

pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), 

arguing that issue preclusion barred Harris's claim. 

Thereafter, in the Worcester action on January 18, 2022,

Commerce filed a motion to vacate the October 14, 2021 judgment 

pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 828 (1974), 

so that it could seek further orders enforcing the terms of the 

settlement agreement. On March 31, 2022, the Worcester action 

judge allowed Commerce's motion to the extent that "the judgment 

entered without prejudice." The Worcester action judge 

explained that Harris's filing of a new declaratory judgment 

action in Middlesex Superior Court, in which it "claim[ed] an 

entitlement to re-litigate the issues raised and settled in this 

4 We note that Commerce filed a "cross-notice of appeal" on 

November 15, 2021.
5

case," justified amending the judgment to be with prejudice. On 

April 1, 2022, an amended judgment entered in the Worcester 

action dismissing Commerce's complaint with prejudice.

On June 23, 2022, in the present action, a Superior Court 

judge5 concluded that the Worcester action judge's March 10 order

and March 31, 2022 order "in totality, are conclusive in any 

subsequent action(s) related to the interpretation and validity 

of the [settlement agreement in the Worcester action]";

determined that the present action was barred under the doctrine 

of issue preclusion; and allowed Commerce's motion to dismiss. 

A judgment of dismissal entered, and Harris now appeals 

therefrom.

Discussion. "We review the allowance of a motion to 

dismiss de novo." Galiastro v. Mortgage Elec. Registration

Sys., Inc., 467 Mass. 160, 164 (2014). The instant case 

involves consideration of the doctrine of issue preclusion, 

which provides that when an issue has been "actually litigated 

and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the 

determination is essential to the judgment, the determination is 

conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties, whether 

on the same or a different claim." Restatement (Second) of 

Judgments § 27 (1982). On appeal, Harris argues that issue 

5 The judge in the present action was not the Worcester action 

judge.
6

preclusion does not apply to the present action because Commerce 

failed to satisfy the "essentiality" and the "finality" elements 

of the issue preclusion analysis. We are unpersuaded. The 

validity and interpretation of the settlement agreement, which 

Harris attempts to relitigate in the present action, was 

essential to the Worcester action judge's decision in the 

earlier proceeding and resulted in a valid and final judgment. 

See Jarosz v. Palmer, 436 Mass. 526, 530-533 (2002).

1. Essential to the judgment. Harris argues that the 

March 10 order, which determined the enforceability and terms of 

the settlement agreement, was not essential to the judgment 

dismissing the underlying claims raised in the Worcester action. 

More specifically, Harris contends that the March 10 order 

addressed the "narrow issue" of the settlement agreement's 

enforceability, not the underlying fraud claims in the Worcester 

action. Jarosz, 436 Mass. at 533. The claim is unavailing.

The question is whether the issue decided was essential to the 

judgment. See id. at 531. The March 10 order set forth the 

terms of the judgment of dismissal and therefore was essential 

to the case's culmination. When a finding in prior litigation 

is "inextricably intertwined" with a court's conclusion, the 

issue is precluded from further litigation. Alicea v. 

Commonwealth, 466 Mass. 228, 238 (2013). Here, we have little 

difficulty concluding that the critical issue in the Worcester 
7

action was whether the parties' agreement to settle Commerce's

claims on certain terms was enforceable such that the parties 

should be held to those terms. The Worcester action judge's 

determination in the March 10 order, that the settlement 

agreement was enforceable on terms set forth therein, led to the 

entry of a judgment of dismissal in the Worcester action and 

effectively ended that case. See Mullins v. Corcoran, 488 Mass. 

275, 282 (2021), quoting Jarosz, supra at 533 (essentiality 

element requires that issue must have had "bearing on the 

outcome of the case"). Therefore, the essentiality requirement 

is fulfilled.

2. Finality. Harris contends that the March 10 order was 

interlocutory and does not constitute a final judgment for issue 

preclusion purposes, as interlocutory orders are generally not 

subject to appellate review.6 Jarosz, 436 Mass. at 534. We 

disagree. "Finality, for the purposes of issue preclusion, does 

6 Harris relies on CP 200 State, LLC v. CIEE, Inc., 488 Mass. 

847, 847 (2022), for the proposition that interlocutory orders 

concerning the enforceability of settlement agreements are not 

appealable and do not have preclusive effect. In CP 200 State 

LLC, supra at 849, the Court explained that interlocutory orders

are generally not appealable to "avoid piecemeal appeals . . . 

that will delay the resolution of the . . . case." However, 

unlike CP 200 State LLC, supra at 848, which addressed the

denial of a motion to enforce an alleged settlement agreement, 

the present case concerns the allowance of a motion to enforce a 

settlement agreement on terms set forth in a court order, which 

effectively ended the litigation because the order later became 

a judgment.
8

not require a final judgment in the strict sense." Id. at 533. 

"A determination is considered final when the parties were fully 

heard, the judge's decision is supported by a reasoned opinion, 

and the earlier opinion was subject to review or was in fact 

reviewed" (quotation and citation omitted). Id. at 533-534.

Here, with respect to the March 10 order, the parties 

briefed the issues and were fully heard before the Worcester 

action judge, who issued a reasoned decision resulting in a 

final judgment that incorporated the terms of the order. While 

Harris suggests that the judge's decision in the March 10 order 

was not subject to review, the history of the case demonstrates 

otherwise. The September 15, 2021, order of the Appeals Court 

single justice stayed the noninterlocutory appeal from the March 

10 order that Harris brought to October 15, 2021; stated that 

the Worcester action judge's allowance in the March 10 order of 

Commerce's motion to enforce the settlement agreement 

"effectively conclude[ed] this litigation"; and ordered that 

"[u]pon entry of a judgment in accordance with the 03/10/2021 

order or other judgment of dismissal of the plaintiff's 

complaint, [Harris] may file a new notice of appeal for

consideration by the Appeals Court." Then on October 14, 2021, 

the Appeals Court extended the stay of Harris's appeal from the

March 10 order to November 19, 2021, and ordered the parties to 

file a status report "as to whether judgment has entered in the
9

trial court and whether a new notice of appeal has been filed." 

These orders from this court, in conjunction with the orders 

entered by the Worcester action judge, notified Harris of the 

obligation to file and prosecute its appeal from the March 10 

order as soon as a judgment entered in the Worcester action, 

should it choose to do so. Instead of availing itself of this 

clear and explicit directive, Harris filed a joint stipulation 

of dismissal of its appeal from the March 10 order and did not 

appeal from the amended judgment that entered on April 1, 2022, 

enforcing the terms of that order with prejudice. These events

rendered the Worcester action judge's March 10 order final for 

the purposes of issue preclusion. In these circumstances, the
10

finality element has been satisfied. Accordingly, Harris's 

claims are barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion.

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Wolohojian, 

Neyman & Shin, JJ.7),

Assistant Clerk

Entered: March 18, 2024.

7 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.