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, theref ore, 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. , & others 1

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, T he Commerce Insurance Company (Commerce) , under the doctrine of issue preclusion
. We affirm. Background
. This case stems from prio r litigation initiated in August 2018 , wherein Commerce filed a complaint in Worcester Superior Court alleging fraud and other counts against Harris (the Worcester a ction). Eventually , the parties entered into a settlement agreement in the Worcester a ction
. On November 10, 2020, Commerce filed a motion to enforce the

1 Douglas Haddad and Alexander Haddad. 2 Accurate Collision, Inc., ADH Collision of Boston, Inc. , and Adam Haddad
.2 settlement agreement . On March 10, 2021, a Superior Court judge (Worcester a ction judge) issued a comprehensive m emorandum and order allowing the motion to enforce the settlement agreement (March 10 order)
. On March 15, 2021 , the Worcester a ction 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, 202 1 , b efore expiration of the nisi period and entry of judgment, Harris filed a notice of appeal f rom 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 , t he Worcester a ction judge stayed action on the motion for entry of judgment, " pending decision from the Appea ls 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 f rom 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 juri sdiction 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 conc luding 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.
. . . U pon entry of a judgment in accordance with the 03/10/2021 orde r 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 a ction judge denied Commerce's motion for entry of judgment and dismissed the matter with out prejudice . The Worcester a ction 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 statuto ry costs, pursuant to the order for entry of dismissal. " On October 14, 2021, judgment entered dismissing Commerce's complaint in the Worcester a ction "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 f rom 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 notice4 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, o n 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 file d 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 a ction judge allowed C ommerce's motion to the extent that "the judgment entered without prejudice." The Worcester a ction 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 Nov ember 15, 2021.5 case," justified amending the judgment to be with prejudice. On April 1, 2022, an amended judgment entered in the Worcester

a ction dismissing Commerce's complaint with prejudice. On June 23, 2022 , in the present acti on, a Superior Court judge 5 concluded that the Worcester a ction 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 a ction] " ; determined that the present action was barred under the doctrine of issue preclusion ; and allowed Co mmerce'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 th e 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 a ction 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. T he validity and interpretation of the settlement agreement , which Harris attempts to relitigate in the present action , was essential to the Worcester a ction judge's decision in the earlier proceeding and resulted in a valid and final judgment
. See Jarosz v. Palmer , 436 Mass. 526 , 5 30

- 533 (2002)
. 1
. Essential t o the judgment . Harris argues that the March 10 order , which determined the enforceability and terms of the settlement agreement, wa s not essential to the judgment dismissing the underlying claims raised in the Worcester a ction
. 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

a ction. 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. T he 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 "in extricably 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 Worcester7 a ction was whether t he parties' agreement to settle Commerce's claims on certain terms was enforceable such that the parties should be held to th os e terms . T he Worcester a ction judge's determination in the M a rch 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 a ction and effectively ended th at case . See Mullins v. Corcoran , 488 Mass. 275, 282 (2021), quoting Jarosz , supra at 53 3 ( 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 wa s interlocutory and does not constitute a fina l 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 Mas s. 847 , 847 (2022), for the proposition that interlocutory orders concerning the enforceability of settlement agreement s are not appealable and do not have preclusive effect. In CP 200 State LLC , supra at 849, the C ourt explaine d 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 end ed the litigation because t he 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

a ction 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. T he 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 a ction 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 the9 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 a ction judge , notified Harris of the obligation to file and prosecute its appeal f rom the March 10 order as soon as a judgment entered in the Worcester a ction, should it choose to do so. Instead of availing itself of this clear and explicit directive , Harris filed a j oint 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
. The se events rendered the Worcester a ction judge's March 10 o rder final for the purpose s of issue preclusion. In these circumstances, the10 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.