Opinion ID: 2260854
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: We Decline To Reach The Denial Of Angleton's Second Motion To Amend.

Text: On February 7, 2007, following its grant of summary judgment to Cox, the court gave Angleton an opportunity to file an amended complaint restricted to claims that arose after March [7], 2003. The court had already given instructions on this point. Angleton filed an amended complaint on February 28, 2007, but, as the court found, the claims for relief in the proposed Second Amended Complaint are not restricted to claims that arose after March [7], 2003. Indeed, the only action that it alleged occurred after March 7, 2003, was the dissemination of the annual report in which Cox commented disapprovingly about members bringing lawsuits. Angleton argues that the binding and distribution of the comments was a separate breach of the agreement from the reading of the comments at the annual meeting. He also argues that it constituted a continuing published libel. The superior court concluded that Angleton had not complied with its order concerning amendment of the complaint, denied the motion to amend, and afforded Angleton 20 days in which to amend the complaint in conformity with its earlier order. Angleton did not do so. Angleton now argues that the superior court abused its discretion in denying his motion to amend. We decline to reach this issue. First, our reversal of the superior court's grant of summary judgment may moot this question as a practical matter, because Angleton will be able to litigate his principal claims on remand. Second, we note that the superior court denied the motion to amend in the context of its decision on summary judgment. Now that the summary judgment has been reversed, that court should be the first to address the propriety of the motion to amend, if indeed Angleton wishes to proceed with his amended complaint. [31]
The order of March 7 that dismissed the contempt action as moot was not a final judgment on the merits as to damages. Therefore Angleton's subsequent damages claims are not precluded. Accordingly, we REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.