Opinion ID: 2260854
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Final judgment and post-judgment contempt proceedings in the 2002 action

Text: A second show cause hearing was held before Superior Court Judge Sharon Gleason on December 23, 2002. Fulton, Summers, and Angleton alleged continuing violations of the settlement agreement, including being barred from meetings at their home lodge. On January 7, 2003, Judge Gleason issued an enforcement order enjoining Cox, Little, and other named defendants from interfering with Fulton and Summer's attendance at events, from suspending them or anyone named in the settlement for events connected to the first suit, and from voiding the Seward Lodge elections at which plaintiffs had won elected positions. That same day, Judge Gleason also entered a final order memorializing the settlement terms and dismissing the first action. Fulton and Summers again moved for a finding of contempt on January 13, alleging that Angleton had already suffered irreparable harm by not being allowed to attend a meeting at which he was to have been installed as an officer of a concordant organization and that he and plaintiffs would suffer further irreparable harm by being barred from a February Grand Lodge meeting. Fulton and Summers requested that the court hold defendants Cox, Grand Lodge, and any other culpable persons in contempt, [and] provide appropriate relief ... that will compensate Plaintiffs ... for the costs, injuries and damages... since Judge Hensley's November 27, 2002 order. The final hearing in the first case regarding this motion was held on March 4, 2003, before Judge Gleason. At the March hearing, the parties agreed that the new leadership of the Lodge was now in compliance with the settlement agreement and that violations of the order had ceased in early February 2003, when the suspended members were officially reinstated by the newly elected Grand Master. The Lodge's counsel asserted that the compliance of the new leadership with the final order in the case mooted everything. When asked if he agreed, plaintiffs' counsel Joseph Kashi stated that the issue really devolves primarily to Mr. Cox in his capacity and to Mr. Little ... [t]here were a significant number of things that happened that I think it would be appropriate for this court to give some fair consideration to. He then stated that ultimate compliance doesn't necessarily wash away the damages and problems that were caused prior to that point, and stated twice that a hearing would be appropriate. However, he then said that there were sufficient affidavits and a decision on the pleadings as to whether a hearing should go forward would be the appropriate course in any event. Finally, near the end of the hearing, he asked the court to review the affidavits because there was some fairly significant and still irreparable and unrepaired injuries that occurred during that two month time when the Court orders were not obeyed. On March 7, 2003, the superior court denied the contempt motion as moot. The order denying the contempt motion also denied Cox and Little's motion to enter a revised final order [s]o as to eliminate any question as to the expiration of any party's right of appeal. The order is silent on any claims or issues of damages.