Opinion ID: 2260854
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The 2004 action for breach of settlement agreement

Text: In November 2004 Angleton, Fulton, and Summers (collectively Angleton) filed a new action against two of the defendants in the prior action, Cox and Little, (collectively Cox) for damages arising from breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and other alleged torts based on the events between the November 2002 settlement conference and the March 2003 reinstatement. Cox moved to dismiss the action for failure to exhaust remedies within the Lodge, and to dismiss any counts seeking recovery in a derivative action on behalf of the Lodge. The court granted the motion on the derivative claims but denied it with respect to failure to exhaust, noting that Cox had not pointed to any language in the Grand Lodge's by-laws that would preclude this action, which appears to be essentially related to the enforcement of a settlement agreement entered into in previous litigation. Cox then moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the previous case was dismissed on March 7, 2003, the court entered a final order memorializing the settlement agreement, and all the disputed facts occurred before that date. [2] The superior court granted the motion for summary judgment on the grounds that its March 7, 2003, order should be accorded res judicata effect for any claims arising from events between the entry of the settlement agreement in November 2002 and the final order on March 7, 2003. The court noted that Angleton had made several requests for hearings on damages, but that the parties ultimately agreed that the court would instead decide the case on the pleadings. Further, Angleton could have appealed from the March 7, 2003, order because of the lack of a damages award or damages hearing, but did not do so. The March order became the final and binding decision regarding claims for events before that order. The court allowed Angleton to file an amended complaint to clarify plaintiffs' claims for the period after the March order. The new amended complaint did not comply with the order and the court denied the motion to amend. The court dismissed the entire case with prejudice in September 2007. Angleton appeals.