Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions


Touch N' Go
®, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother.

 

You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Ronald P. Alleva a/k/a Ron Alleva; Annette M. Alleva; Alleva Investments, LLC; and Grubstake Auction Company v. Municipality of Anchorage; Heritage Land Bank; Catholic Social Services, Inc.; and Bean’s Café, Inc. (7/24/2020) sp-7472

Ronald P. Alleva a/k/a Ron Alleva; Annette M. Alleva; Alleva Investments, LLC; and Grubstake Auction Company v. Municipality of Anchorage; Heritage Land Bank; Catholic Social Services, Inc.; and Bean’s Café, Inc. (7/24/2020) sp-7472

           Notice:   This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the P                    ACIFIC  REPORTER.  

           Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,  

                                                                                                                        

           303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email  

                                                                                                                          

           corrections@akcourts.us.  



                       THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA                                      



RONALD  P.  ALLEVA,  a/k/a  RON                                  )  

ALLEVA;  ANNETTE  M.  ALLEVA;                                    )    Supreme Court No. S-17302  

                                                                                      

                                                                                                       

ALLEVA  INVESTMENTS,  LLC;  and  )  

GRUBSTAKE  AUCTION                                               )    Superior Court No. 3AN-18-06322 CI  

                                                                                                                                 

COMPANY,  INC.,                                                  )  

                                                                                           

                                                                 )    O P I N I O N  

                                Appellants,                      )  

                                                                                                        

                                                                 )    No. 7472 - July 24, 2020  

           v.                                                    )  

                                                                 )  

                                        

THE MUNICIPALITY OF                                              )  

                                                  

ANCHORAGE; HERITAGE LAND                                         )  

                                    

BANK; CATHOLIC SOCIAL                                            )  

                                       

SERVICES, INC.; and BEAN'S                                       )  

             

CAFÉ, INC.,                                                      )  

                                                                 )  

                                Appellees.                       )  

                                                                 )  



                                                                                                              

                                            

                     Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third  

                                                                                                       

                     Judicial District, Anchorage, Jennifer Henderson, Judge.  



                                                                                                    

                     Appearances:  Paul J. Nangle, Paul J. Nangle & Associates,  

                                                                                                       

                     Anchorage,  for  Appellants.                      Pamela  D.  Weiss,  Assistant  

                                                                                                       

                     Municipal   Attorney,   and   Rebecca   A.   Windt   Pearson,  

                                                                                                  

                     Municipal Attorney, Anchorage, for Appellees Municipality  

                                                                                                            

                      of Anchorage and Heritage Land Bank. Kimberlee A. Colbo,  

                                                                                                    

                     HughesWhiteColbo Wilcox&Tervooren, LLC,Anchorage,  

                                                                                                            

                      for Appellee Catholic Social Services, Inc. Andrew J. Fierro,  

                                                                                                                 

                     Law  Office  of  Andrew  J.  Fierro,  Inc.,  Anchorage,  for  

                                                            

                     Appellee Bean's Café, Inc.  


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

                      Before:   Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen,                                          

                      and Carney, Justices.     



                      MAASSEN, Justice.   



I.         INTRODUCTION  



                      Landowners settled a lawsuit against a municipality and organizations that  

                                                                                                                                          



operate a homeless shelter and a soup kitchen; the settlement agreement recited that the  

                                                                                                                                          



landowners accepted a sum of money in exchange for a release of present and future  

                                                                                                                                     



trespass and nuisance claims involving the organizations' clients.  Six years later the  

                                                                                                                                          



landowners filed this lawsuit asserting similar claims.  Their complaint referred to the  

                                                                                                                                          



prior settlement, but they did not file the settlement agreement with the complaint.  The  

                                                                                                                                         



defendants moved to dismiss, relying on the settlement agreement.  

                                                                                             



                      The landowners argued that because the settlement agreement had not been  

                                                                                                                                        



filed with the complaint, it could not be used as a basis for dismissal under Alaska Civil  

                                                                                                                                       



Rule12(b)(6). Thesuperior court rejected thelandowners' argument, grantedthemotion  

                                                                                                                                    



to dismiss, and ruled in the alternative that the defendants were entitled to summary  

                                                                                                                                



judgment.  The landowners appealed.  

                                               



                      We  agree  with  the  superior  court  that  the  settlement  agreement  was  

                                                                                                                                        



properly considered on the motion to dismiss because it was addressed in the complaint  

                                                                                                                               



and its authenticity was not questioned.   We also agree that the settlement bars the  

                                                                                                                                          



landowners' current lawsuit.  We therefore affirm the judgment of the superior court.  

                                                                                                                                               



II.        FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS  

                                     



                      Ronald and Annette Alleva own property in downtown Anchorage.  They  

                                                                                                                                       



rent portions of their property to commercial tenants and use some of the property for  

                                                                                                                                          



their  own  business  purposes.                      The  Allevas  and  two  of  their  businesses,  Grubstake  

                                                                                                                              



Auction Company, Inc., and Alleva Investments, LLC, are plaintiffs in this case.  Their  

                                                                                                                                       



                                                                     -2-                                                               7472
  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

property is located near Bean's Café, a charitable soup kitchen, and the Brother Francis                                                          



Shelter, a homeless shelter operated by Catholic Social Services, LLC.                                                                These service   



providers lease land from the Heritage Land Bank, a division of the Municipality of                                                                         



                      1  

Anchorage.    



                         1.          The 2012 lawsuit and settlement  

                                                                                 



                         In 2012 Ronald Alleva filed a lawsuit against the Municipality, Catholic  

                                                                                                                                                



Social Services, and Bean's Café.  He alleged trespass and nuisance claims and sought  

                                                                                                                                                    



both injunctive and monetary relief.  He alleged that his health, safety, property values,  

                                                                                                                                                   



and ability to enjoy his property suffered because of his neighbors' "inability and failure  

                                                                                                                                                    



to control the illegal activities of their clients."  He alleged that these illegal activities  

                                                                                                                                               



included  "assault  and  battery,  the  use  and  sale  of  drugs  and  alcohol,  littering,  the  

                                                                                                                                                          



discharge  of  urine,  fecal  material,  snot  and  vomit,  public  copulation,  camping,  

                                                                                                                                              



misconduct with firearms and other weapons, and gang related activities."   He also  

                                                                                                                                                        



alleged that the illegal activities had prompted over 800 calls per year for emergency  

                                                                                                                                            



services, and that the Municipality had wrongfully failed to charge Catholic Social  

                                                                                                                                                    

Services and Bean's Café for the excessive number of calls.2  

                                                                                                                   



                         The2012 lawsuit endedwith asettlement agreement signedbyboth Ronald  

                                                                                                                                                   



and Annette Alleva and their business, Grubstake Auction Company.  In exchange for  

                                                                                                                                                           



$30,000, the Allevas agreed that they  

                                                              



                         release and forever discharge Catholic Social Services, Inc.,  

                                                                                                                               

                         Beans' [sic] Café Inc. and the Municipality of Anchorage,  

                                                                                                                 

                         their  successors  and  assigns,  .  .  .  and  all  other  persons,  

                                                                                                                       

                         firms, . . . [and] corporations . . . liable or who might be  

                                                                                                                                   

                         claimed to be liable, . . . of and from all actions, causes of  

                                                                                                                                   



            1            See  Anchorage Municipal Code 25.40.010 (1995).                                                 



            2  

                                                                                                                                                

                         See AMC 08.80.020 (2009) (imposing fees for "excessive police response  

                                                                                                           

to the dwelling unit or commercial unit during a calendar year").  



                                                                             -3-                                                                      7472
  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

                                                                                                              

                    action, suits, controversies, claims, damages, and demands of  

                                                                                                             

                    every kind and nature, asserted or unasserted, mature or to  

                                                                                                     

                    mature in the future and for and by reason of any matter,  

                                                                                                 

                    thing  or  claim  and  especially  from  all  claims,  demands,  

                                                                                                             

                    injuries,  damages  and  complaints  accrued  or  hereafter  to  

                                                                                                         

                    accrue,   concerning   [the   Allevas']   use,   ownership   and  

                                                                                            

                    occupancy of [their] properties.  [Emphasis in original.]  



                                                                                                                        

The agreement stated that theAllevas "unequivocally release [the Municipality, Catholic  



                                                                                                                    

Social  Services,  and  Bean's  Café]  from  any  and  all  claims  (legal,  equitable,  



                                                                                                                               

administrative or otherwise) including but not limited to damages and claims in any way  



                                                                                                                                

related to the above described residential and commercial real property" or related to the  



                                                                                                                                

parties' use of their properties.  Most important here, the agreement stipulated that the  



                                                                                                                         

Allevas "further waive, release and discharge any future claims arising out of or relating  



                                                                                                                               

to the conduct of guests or invitees of the [Municipality, Catholic Social Services, and  



                                                                                                                         

Bean's Café] including without limitation any claim based on trespass or other damage  



                                                                                   

to the above described property."  (Emphasis added.)  



                                               

                    2.         The 2018 lawsuit  



                                                                                       

                    In April 2018 Ronald and Annette Alleva, Grubstake Auction Company,  



                                                                                                                                

and Alleva Investments (the Allevas) filed a complaint against the Municipality, the  



                                                                                                                            

Heritage  Land  Bank,  Catholic  Social  Services,  and  Bean's  Café.                                     As  in  the  2012  



                                                                                                                               

complaint, the Allevas alleged trespass and nuisance claims and sought injunctive and  



                                                                                                                                   

monetary relief.  Although the 2018 complaint added an inverse condemnation claim, it  



                                                                                                                              

included allegations of harmtaken verbatimfromthe2012 complaint. For example, both  



                                                                                                                        

complaints alleged that the "illegal activities" of the clients of Bean's Café and Catholic  



                                                                                                                              

Social  Services  created  "numerous  health  risks,"  decreased  property  values,  and  



                                                                                                                                      

"severely and negatively impacted" the Allevas' ability to use and enjoy their property.  



                                                                                                                          

Both  complaints  alleged  that  the  charities'  clients  engaged  in  "numerous  illegal  



                                                                                                                                

activities" on the Allevas' property "including but not limited to assault and battery, the  



                                                                -4-                                                         7472
  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

                                                                                                                              

use and sale of drugs and alcohol, littering, the discharge of urine, fecal material, snot  



                                                                                                                              

and vomit, (indeed myriad bodily fluids), public copulation, camping, misconduct with  



                                                                                                                                

firearms and other weapons, and gang related activities."   (The parenthetical in the  



                                                                                                                

quoted language was not in the 2012 complaint; the rest of the language was the same  



                                                                                                                           

in  both.)       The  2018  complaint  mirrored  the  2012  complaint  by  alleging,  in  nearly  



                                                                                                                            

identical terms, that "[t]he illegal activities of [the clients] have created numerous health  



                                                                                                                               

risks for plaintiffs and his [sic] tenants and guests," and the Allevas again asserted that  



                                                                                                                              

the Municipality wrongfully failed to charge Catholic Social Services and Bean's Café  



                                                                                                                       

for excessive emergency service calls necessitated by their clients' conduct.  



                                                                                                                                

                    The 2012 settlement agreement was not attached to the 2018 complaint, but  



                                                                                                                              

the complaint did make reference to it:  "Plaintiff Ronald P. Alleva has previously filed  



                                                                                                                        

a  lawsuit  against  these  same  defendants  regarding  similar  illegal  acts  and  harmful  



                                                                                                                       

behaviors, under case number 3AN-12-08260 CI.  That lawsuit was settled on mutually  



                                                                                                                              

agreeable terms."  The Allevas asserted, however, that the new lawsuit concerned only  



                                                                                                                               

"those acts and behaviors that have taken place since the date of that settlement of that  



                                                                                                                               

prior lawsuit, and exclude all acts from before the date of that prior settlement" and was  



                                                              

therefore not barred by the agreement.  



                                                                                                                          

                    The Municipality moved to dismiss the 2018 lawsuit pursuant to Alaska  



                                                                                                                               

Civil Rule 12(b)(6), attaching a copy of the 2012 settlement agreement and arguing that  



                                                                                                                               

it barred the Allevas' current claims.  Catholic Social Services joined the motion, and  



                                                                                                                           

Bean's Café did not oppose it. The Allevas opposed the motion, but they did not submit  



affidavits or other evidence; they argued only that their new complaint was not barred  



                                                                                                                               

by the 2012 settlement agreement because the new complaint involved only conduct that  



                                          

post-dated the agreement.  



                                                                -5-                                                         7472
  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

                                               The   superior   court   asked   about   the   settlement   agreement   during   oral  



argument on the Municipality's motion to dismiss.                                                                                                                                   The court asked whether there was                                                                             



any dispute about "what's been set forth as the release [agreement]," and the Allevas'                                                                                                                                                                                           



counsel responded, "No, Your Honor. . . .                                                                                                           It is the release."                                                            The Allevas argued,                              



however, that the Municipality's reliance on the settlement agreement required the court                                                                                                                                                                                                      



to   convert   the   Rule   12(b)(6)   motion   into   one   for   summary   judgment   and   to   allow  



discovery before ruling.                                                               



                                               The court granted the Municipality's motion to dismiss.                                                                                                                                            Applying Alaska   



and  federal precedent, the court decided that it could consider the 2012 settlement                                                                                                                                                                                      



agreement   when   ruling  on  the   motion   to   dismiss   because   "[t]he   complaint   clearly  



referencesthesettlementagreement,"and                                                                                                          "when specifically asked at oral argument,[the                                                                                                      



Allevas] acknowledged that the settlement agreement was authentic."                                                                                                                                                                                  The court found                       



that the agreement's "language is clear on its face" and that it "unambiguously bars [the                                                                                                                                                                                                         



Allevas'] claims."                                               The court decided in the alternative that the motion to dismiss could                                                                                                                                                      



be converted to a summary judgment motion and granted for the same reason.                                                                                                                                                                                                                      The  



Allevas appeal.                                          



III.                    STANDARD OF REVIEW                                               

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        3   "In conducting de novo  

                                               We review grants of motions to dismiss de novo.                                                                                                                                                                                                



review, we will 'adopt the rule of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent,  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

reason, and policy.' "4                                                          "In reviewing a motion to dismiss, we generally do not consider  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



                       3                       Pedersen v. Blythe                                                , 292 P.3d 182, 184 (Alaska 2012).                                                                  



                        4  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

                                               Haight v. City & Borough of Juneau, 448 P.3d 254, 256 (Alaska 2019)  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

(quoting State, Div. of Elections v. Green Party of Alaska, 118 P.3d 1054, 1059 (Alaska  

2005)).  



                                                                                                                                                   -6-                                                                                                                                         7472
  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

                                                                                                                                              5  

matters outside the complaint, although we may consider attachments to the complaint."                                                            



IV.	       DISCUSSION  



                                                                                                                             

           A.	        The Superior Court Did Not Err By Deciding That The Settlement  

                                                                                                                                            

                      Agreement Was Within The Pleadings For Purposes Of A Motion To  

                                                                                                                            

                      Dismiss Even Though It Had Not Been Attached To The Complaint.  



                                                                                                                                           

                      An Alaska Civil Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is "grounded on the  



                                                                                                                                         

'failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.'  Such a motion tests the legal  



                                                                           6  

                                                      

sufficiency  of  the  complaint's  allegations."                                                                                              

                                                                                "Civil  Rule  12(b)  provides  that  if  a  



                                                                                                                                           

Rule 12(b)(6) motion . . . involves presentation to the court of matters outside the  



                                                                                                                                    

pleadings, and if these outside matters are not excluded by the court, then the motion  



                                                                                                                 7  

                                                                                                                    

must be treated as one for summary judgment under Civil Rule 56." 



                                                                                                                                

                      TheAllevas arguethat becausethey didnot attach thesettlementagreement  



                                                                                                                              

to their complaint, it was "outside the pleadings" and should not have been considered  



                                                                                                                                        

on the motion to dismiss.  They assert that while there are exceptions that allow a court  



                                                                                                                                    

to consider evidence outside the pleadings - such as documents subject to strict judicial  



           5          Larson   v.   State, Dep't   of   Corr.,   284   P.3d   1,   7   (Alaska   2012)   (citation  



omitted).  



           6          Dworkin  v.  First  Nat'l  Bank  of  Fairbanks,  444  P.2d  777,  779  (Alaska  1968)  



(quoting  Alaska  R.  Civ.  P.   12(b)(6)).  



           7          Brice v. State, Div. of Forest, Land & Water Mgmt., 669 P.2d 1311, 1314  

                                                                                                                                        

(Alaska 1983); Larson, 284 P.3d at 7.  

                                                             



                                                                      -7-	                                                             7472
  


----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

                 8                                                                 9  

notice  or in the public record                                                       - neither exception applies in this case.                                                                           



                                     The   Municipality  counters   that   because   the   complaint   referred   to   the  



settlement agreement explicitly and the Allevas admitted its authenticity, it should be                                                                                                                                                    



viewed   as   being   within   the   pleadings  for  purposes   of   a   motion   to   dismiss.     The  



Municipality argues that adopting the Allevas' position                                                                                                            would "create the perverse                            



incentive" for parties to avoid attaching relevant documents to their complaints in order                                                                                                                                          



to forestall dismissal.                                       



                                     We addressed the materials that could be considered on a motion to dismiss                                                                                                               



in  Ahwinona v. State                                        , which, like this case, involved a lawsuit following an earlier                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                    10   Ahwinona was injured while in State  

settlement agreement between the same parties.                                                                                                                                                                                      

custody and signed a "Release of All Claims" in exchange for a sum of money.11   Three  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



years later he sued two of the original parties for personal injury, attaching the release  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

and several other documents to the complaint.12   The superior court granted a motion to  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



dismiss  without  stating  which,  if  any,  of  the  attachments  it  relied  on  to  reach  its  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



                   8                 See   Pedersen,   292   P.3d   at   185   (noting   that   when   deciding  motion   to  



dismiss, court must give notice of intent to take judicial notice of evidence outside                                                                                                                                        

pleadings and                             afford opposing party                                             "an   opportunity to                                    dispute   the facts judicially                    

noticed" (quoting                                 Schwartz v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co.                                                                                     , 374 F. Supp. 564, 579                              

(E.D.  Pa. 1974))).   



                   9                 SeeNizinski v. Currington,517P.2d 754, 756 (Alaska1974) (affirming that  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

superior court properly considered matters of public record - affidavits from related  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

lawsuit - on motion to dismiss).  

                                                                     



                   10                 922 P.2d 884, 884 (Alaska 1996).  

                                                                                                                  



                   11                Id. at 884-85.  

                                                      



                   12                Id. at 885.  

                                                      



                                                                                                                     -8-                                                                                                            7472
  


----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

                   13                                                                                               14  

decision.               We affirmed the court's judgment on appeal.                                                      Citing a substantial body of                          



federal authority, we held that "the trial court could properly rely upon these materials                                                



[attached to the complaint] in deciding the State's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)                                                                          

without converting it into a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56."                                                                                    15  



                            In Ahwinona we did not address the issue presented here: whether the court  

                                                                                                                                                                         



errs by considering documents referenced in the complaint, but not submitted with it,  

                                                                                                                                                                               



without first converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.  But  

                                                                                                                                                                            



some of the federal authorities on which we relied in Ahwinona  do address this issue.  

                                                                                                                                                                                     



Interpreting Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Professors Wright  

                                                                                                                                                                     



and Miller explain that "[t]he court is not limited to the four corners of the complaint"  

                                                                                                                                               



and that "[n]umerous cases . . . have allowed consideration of matters incorporated by  

                                                                                                                                                   



reference or integral to the claim" as well as, among other things, "exhibits attached to  

                                                                                                                                                                               

thecomplaint whoseauthenticity is unquestioned."16  TheNinthCircuit Court ofAppeals  

                                                                                                                                                                   



              13           Id.  at  885-86.  



              14           Id.  at  888.  



              15           Id.  at   886.   Justice  Rabinowitz  concurred  in  the  judgment but disagreed  



with  the  court's  application  of  the  Rule  12(b)(6)  standard  to  Ahwinona  because  he  was  

"unrepresented  at  all  times  in  connection  with  the  proceedings  in  the  superior  court."   Id.  

at   888.   In  their  briefing,  the  Allevas  allege  that  Ronald  was  pro   se  in  2012.   But  the  

Allevas  have  been  represented  from  the  beginning  of  this  case,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  

relax  the  rules  governing  procedure  in  the  trial  court.      



              16            5B CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT  & ARTHUR  R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND  

                                    

PROCEDURE  §   1357  (3d  ed.  2004).   



                                                                                       -9-                                                                               7472
  


----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

                                                                          17                                               18  

adopted this rule in                  Branch v. Tunnell                  ,   also cited in            Ahwinona.                 The court had earlier        



concluded "that a document is not 'outside' the complaint if the complaint specifically                                                           

                                                                                                                             19    Citing the "leading  

refers to the document and if its authenticity is not questioned."                                                                                      



commentators" - Professors Wright and Miller - the court explained that "when [the]  

                                                                                                                                                                



plaintiff fails to introduce a pertinent document as part of his pleading, [the] defendant  

                                                                                                                                                      

may introduce the exhibit as part of his motion attacking the pleading."20                                                                           The court  

                                                                                                                                                              



concluded, "As [this rule] makes sense and comports with existing practice, we hold that  

                                                                                                                                                                  



documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party  

                                                      



questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading, may be considered in  

                                                                              



ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss" without converting the motion into one for  

                                                                                                                                                                   

summary judgment.21                          The Branch  court affirmed a dismissal that relied in part on a  

                                                                                                                                                                      



deposition and an affidavit of unquestioned authenticity that were "expressly mentioned  

                                                                                                                                                     

in the amended complaint."22  

                                

                                                                                                                                                             23  and  

                          Our case law makes clear that "motions to dismiss are disfavored"                                                                       

                                                                                                                                       



should be granted only if "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of  

                                                                                                                                                                     



             17           14 F.3d 449 (9th Cir. 1994),                             overruled on other grounds by Galbraith v.                                        



Cty. of Santa Clara                   , 307 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2002).                  



             18           922 P.2d at 886 (Rabinowitz, J., concurring).  

                                                                                           



             19           Branch, 14 F.3d at 453 (citing Townsend v. Columbia Operations, 667 F.2d  

                                                                                                                                                                

844, 848-49 (9th Cir. 1982)).  

                                           



             20           Id. (alterations in original) (quoting 5 CHARLES  ALAN  WRIGHT  & A                                                              RTHUR  

                                                                                                   

R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1327 (2d ed. 1990)).                                                              

                                                                                                 



             21           Id.  at  454.  



             22           Id.  



             23           Adkins  v.  Stansel,  204  P.3d   1031,   1033  (Alaska  2009).  



                                                                                -10-                                                                           7472
  


----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

                                                                                                 24  

 facts that would entitle him or her to relief."                                                       This restraint, however, must be exercised                                



 in light of Rule 12's goal of promoting the efficient resolution of cases that can be                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                                       25       Having  weighed  these  

 decided   early   and   without   great   expense   to   either   side.                                                                                                                 



 considerations, we adopt the rule as stated by the Ninth Circuit in Branch : "[D]ocuments  

                                                                                                                                                                      



whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but  

                                                                                                                                                                                               



which are not physically attached to the pleading, may be considered in ruling on a  

                                                                                                                                                                                                   



 Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss" without converting the motion to one for summary  

                                                                                                                                                                                

judgment.26                      Here,  because  the  2018  complaint  specifically  referred  to  the  2012  

                                                                                                                                                                                         



 settlementagreementandtheAllevas concededtheagreement's authenticity, thesuperior  

                                                                                                                                                                                    



 court did not err by considering it on the Municipality's motion to dismiss.  

                                                                                                                                                         



                B.             The 2012 Settlement Agreement Bars The Allevas' Complaint.  

                                                                                                                                                            



                               We next review the superior court's conclusion that the 2012 settlement  

                                                                                                                                                                               



 agreement bars the Allevas' current lawsuit. "As a matter of law, a valid release will bar  

                                                                                                                                                                                               



 any  subsequent  claims  covered  by  the  release.                                                                 'A  policy  favoring  termination  of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                

 litigation and encouraging settlement agreements should prevail.' "27  

                                                                                                                                                        



                24             Id.  (quoting  Catholic Bishop of N. Alaska v. Does 1-6                                                                   , 141 P.3d 719, 722                  



 (Alaska 2006)).   



                25             See 5B CHARLES  ALAN  WRIGHT  &A                                                  RTHUR  R.M                ILLER,F           EDERAL  PRACTICE  

                                                

            PROCEDURE  § 1342 (3d ed. 2004) (stating "the basic philosophy of Rule 12" as                                                                                                        

AND                                       

preventing both sides from putting "the other to such expense and delay as to make the                                                                                                         

 seeking of justice a profitless thing, all the more so when such expense and delay is the                                                                                                     

 sole benefit accomplished" (quoting                                               E. I. Du Pont                  De Nemours &                       Co. v. Dupont Textile             

Mills, Inc.             , 26 F. Supp. 236, 236-37 (M.D. Pa. 1939))).                                                            



                26             Branch, 14 F.3d at 454.  

                                                                            



                27             Petroleum Sales, Ltd. v. Mapco Alaska, Inc., 687 P.2d 923, 929 (Alaska  

                                                                                                                                                                                    

 1984) (footnote omitted) (citation omitted) (quoting Mitchell v. Mitchell, 655 P.2d 748,  

                                                                                                                                                                                            

 751 (Alaska 1982)).  

                                                



                                                                                               -11-                                                                                       7472
  


----------------------- Page 12-----------------------

                                                                                                                          

                    The Allevas argue that the 2012 agreement does not preclude their current  



                                                                                                                               

lawsuit  because  their  complaint  alleges  only  conduct  and  injuries  arising  after  the  



                                                                                                                               

agreement  was  signed,  and  agreements  releasing  liability  for  future  conduct  are  



                                                                                                                             

disfavored.  They also argue that waivers of future claims should be enforced only when  



                                                                                                                                

they  are  clear  and  unambiguous,  and  the  language  of  the  settlement  agreement  -  



                                                                                                                         

specifically the phrase "future claims" - is ambiguous. They argue that "future claims"  



                                                                                                                             

could mean either future claims that arise "because the past conduct of the released party  



                                                                                                                             

results in new damages manifesting themselves" or future claims that arise "based upon  



                                                                                                                                  

conduct of the released party that has not even occurred as of the date of the signing of  



                                      

the release agreement."  



                                                                                                                 

                    In  response,  the  Municipality  argues  that  the  settlement  agreement's  



                                                                                                                              

language unambiguously "bars [the Allevas] frombringing claims arising out of the very  



                                                                                                                             

same conduct alleged in the 2012 Complaint."  The Municipality highlights the 2018  



                                                                                                                  

complaint's  language  alleging  ongoing  harms,  including  "continued  problems,"  



                                                                                                                           

"continu[ed] trespasses," and descriptions of how Bean's Café and Catholic Social  



                                                                                                                                 

Services "continue[] to occupy and use" their property.   The Municipality points to  



                                                                                                                           

similar allegations in both complaints, including that Bean's Café and Catholic Social  



                                                                                                                            

Services failed to mitigate their clients' negative impacts and that the Municipality failed  



                                                                                                                 

to charge the two organizations for excessive emergency service calls. The Municipality  



                                                                                                                    

and  Catholic  Social  Services  assert  that  Alaska  law  strongly  favors  settlement  



                                                                                                                        

agreements and that, absent a successful motion to set the agreement aside, the superior  



                                                 

court was obliged to enforce it.  



                                                                                                                                      

                    The parties' arguments highlight the potential tension between two goals:  



                                                               -12-                                                         7472
  


----------------------- Page 13-----------------------

on the one hand, protecting the right to seek a remedy for new and unanticipated harm,                                                               28  



                                                                                                                                                     29  

                                                                                                                                                         

and, on the other hand, enforcing a valid arm's-length agreement to give up that right. 



A leading treatise summarizes how courts have addressed this tension:  

                                                                                                               



                        Contract provisions releasing or limiting liability for claims  

                                                                                                                      

                       that have not yet arisen are generally not favored, in contrast  

                                                                                                                   

                       to contracts to settle existing claims, which are favored as a  

                                                                                                       

                       means of avoiding litigation and settling or compromising  

                                                                                                                     

                        disputes  amicably.                   However,  a  contract  for  the  future  

                                                                                                                       

                        discharge of a claim will be upheld according to its terms  

                                                                                                                       

                       unless it purports to immunize future conduct that is either  

                                                                                                                             

                        intentionally  tortious  or  grossly  negligent,  or  unless  it  

                                                                                                                      

                        otherwise violates a strong, well articulated, and clear public  

                                                                                                                            

                       policy.  Also, even then, an agreement will be upheld if the  

                                                                                                                      

                        conduct that might result from and be insulated by the clause  

                                                                                                                             

                        is not seriously immoral and the agreement does not by its  

                                                                                                                  

                       terms orinpracticaleffect inducesuch inappropriateconduct.  



                                                                                                                   

                        Generally,   clauses   limiting   future   liability   are   strictly  

                                                                                                                   

                        construed bythecourtsand areunenforceableunless assented  

                                                                                                                     [30]  

                                                                                                

                       to in a context of free and understanding negotiation. 



In short, settlement agreements that waive future liability will be upheld subject to  

                                                                                                                                                    



certain limits, and in any event they will be strictly construed.  

                                                                                           



                       We have addressed releases of future liability before.  In Petroleum Sales,  

                                                                                                                                              



Ltd. v. Mapco Alaska, Inc., a lawsuit that followed settlement of an earlier case, we were  

                                                                                                                                                



            28         See id.      ("There is no dispute that a new cause of action accrues for damages                                 



caused by           post-settlement .     .   .   conduct each                     time such          new or        renewed   conduct is   

engaged in.").   



            29         See Kazan  v. Dough  Boys, Inc.,  201  P.3d 508, 524-25  (Alaska 2009)  

                                                                                                                                             

(explaining judicial policy favoring enforcement of private settlement agreements as  

                                                                                                                                                    

negotiated by the parties).  

                                



            30          8 WILLISTON ON               CONTRACTS  § 19:21, at 356-65 (4th ed. 2010) (footnotes                           

                            

omitted).  



                                                                        -13-                                                                   7472
  


----------------------- Page 14-----------------------

  "required to determine whether appellants presently allege unlawful acts sufficiently                                                               



  dissimilar from those encompassed in the previous settlement release which give rise to                                                                                

                                                    31     The case began in 1979, when Mapco's predecessor-in- 

  a new actionable claim."                                                                                                                    

                                                                                                                                                     32  That case  

  interest was sued for alleged monopolization of a regional refined oil market.                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                       



  settled, and each side "expressly released the other 'from any and all claims, equitable  

                                                                                                                                     



  and legal, known or unknown, which they presently have . . . and each covenant[ed] not  

                                                                                                                                                                       

  to sue [the other] based on any such claims existing as of" the settlement date.33   Two  

                                                                                                                                                    



  years later, two of the parties to the settlement again sued Mapco alleging violations of  

                                                                                                                                                                         



  the same statutes; "[t]he only new conduct complained of subsequent to the release [was]  

                                                                                                                                                                  

  price increases in alleged exploitation of the monopolistic position already obtained."34  

                                                                                                                                                                              



                          We concluded that the "complaint in [that] case substantially echoe[d]" the  

                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                        35     Under  the  settlement's  terms,  

prior  complaint  and  was  barred  by  the  settlement.                                                                                                        

                                                                                  



"aspects of the alleged monopolistic activity up to the date of the release [were] not  

                                                                                                                                                                      

                        36    Although there was "no dispute that a new cause of action accrues for  

actionable."                                                                                                                                                           



damages caused by post-settlement antitrust conduct each time such new or renewed  

                                                                                                                                                           



conduct is engaged in," the allegations stemming from the alleged monopoly were not  

                                                                                                                                                                      



               31           687 P.2d at 924.
                 



               32           Id.  at 925-26.
             



               33
          Id. at 926 (first and third alterations in original).  

                                                                                                                             



               34           Id. at 928.  

                                                  



               35           Id.  at 928-29.   



               36           Id. at 929.  

                                                  



                                                                                   -14-                                                                           7472
  


----------------------- Page 15-----------------------

                                                                                               37  

new events "giving rise to a new cause of action."                                                  We determined that the agreement               



                                                                                                                                                                   38  

covered claims that were "reasonably ascertainable" when the agreement was signed.                                                                                       



Under this standard, "[d]amages from prospective price increases were among those  

                                                                                                                                                            



compromised.  They were not so highly speculative at the time of the release to warrant  

                                                                                                                                                        



a separate cause of action now.  Indeed, appellants were keenly aware that higher prices  

                                                                                                                                                            



were among the consequences of the pre-release conduct" in the prior lawsuit and were  

                                                                                                                                                              

therefore barred from bringing new litigation.39  

                                                                      



                         In Martech Construction Co., Inc. v. Ogden Environmental Services, Inc.,  

                                                                                                                                                              



we applied Mapco 's "reasonably ascertainable" standard to a settlement agreement that  

                                                                                                                                                                



released liability "against any 'claims of any nature whatsoever' between" a construction  

                                                                                                                                               

contractor and subcontractor.40   In the second suit the parties disputed who was required  

                                                                                                                                                       



to pay for a switchgear that had been ordered but not yet paid for or delivered when they  

                                                                                                                                                               

signed their settlement agreement.41  We held that the switchgear claim was reasonably  

                                                                                                                                                  



ascertainable at the time of the settlement agreement and, because the broad language of  

                                                                                                                                                                   



the agreement "indicate[d] a complete washing of the hands between the parties," the  

                                                                                                                                                                 

agreement precluded the claim.42  

                                                 



                         Following Mapco, the first question before us is whether it was reasonably  

                                                                                                                                                  



ascertainable that the objectionable conduct of the defendants' clients would continue  

                                                                                                                                                      



              37           Id.  



              38           Id.  at 930.   



              39           Id.   



              40           852 P.2d 1146, 1151-52 (Alaska 1993).                                         



              41           Id.  at 1150.           



              42           Id.  at 1152.   



                                                                                -15-                                                                         7472
  


----------------------- Page 16-----------------------

   following the 2012 settlement agreement.                                                                                                                                                                    We note that the agreement itself contains no                                                                                                                                                                      



  representations by the defendants that any of that conduct would cease, or that they would                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



  make efforts to curb it, or indeed that the relationship between the parties would change                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



   in any way. And the 2018 complaint alleges that the objectionable conduct did continue;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



  both complaints allege the same conduct and the same resulting harm, often in exactly the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



   same words.                                                    The Allevas submitted no affidavits or other evidence suggesting that the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



   objectionable conduct had changed in any material way or that some new kind of conduct                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



   occurred that the parties had not reasonably anticipated.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



                                                                    Under the settlement agreement, the Allevas agreed to tolerate the ongoing                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



  problems with their neighbors in exchange for a sum of money. They explicitly released                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



  the defendants "from any and all claims . . . in any way related to the [Allevas'] real                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



  property . . . and/or the [defendants'] use of their adjoining properties," including "any  



future  claims   arising   out   of   or   relating   to   the   conduct  of   guests   or   invitees   of   the  



   [defendants] including without limitation any claim based on trespass or other damage to                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



  the[Allevas']property." (Emphasis                                                                                                                                              added.) Even                                                       strictlyconstrued,                                                                      this languagecovers   



  the claims in the Allevas' complaint. Their claims arise out of, and are wholly related to,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



  the actions of Bean's Café's and Catholic Social Services' clients and the impact of those                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                         43           The settlement agreement uses broad and inclusive  

   actions on the Allevas' properties.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



   language, but it is clear about the nature of claims being released; as in Martech, it  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



   appears to have been intended as "a complete washing of the hands" between the parties.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



                                                                    The question remains whether the parties' agreement should be enforced  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



   according to its terms. This case does not implicate the concerns highlighted in Williston  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



  that  "clauses  limiting  future  liability"  be  "assented  to  in  a  context  of  free  and  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



                                       43                               The 2018 complaint added an inverse condemnation claim to the ones                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



       alleged in 2012, but the factual basis of it is the same, and the Allevas do not argue that                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

       it should have been viewed any differently than their claims for nuisance and trespass.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



                                                                                                                                                                                                                 -16-                                                                                                                                                                                                  7472
  


----------------------- Page 17-----------------------

                                                 44  

understanding  negotiation";                         the   Allevas   admitted   in   their   complaint   that   the   2012  



settlement was "on mutually agreeable terms."  We also consider whether allowing the                                                            



parties' agreement to stand would violate "a strong, well articulated, and clear public                                                   

             45  and conclude that it would not.  Public policy supports the "enforcement of  

policy"                                                                                                                                          



settlement agreements," both out of respect for parties' freedomto contract and to "reduce  

                                                                                                                                         

demand  for  judicial  resources."46                          This  case  involves  trespass  and  nuisance  claims  

                                                                                                                                          



between  neighbors;  it  does  not  involve  claims  for  "intentionally  tortious  or  grossly  

                                                                                                                                        

negligent" conduct47  or otherwise implicate a serious public policy concern that would  

                                                                                                                                           



outweigh the parties' contractual intent.  

                                                          



                       Because we affirm the superior court's dismissal under Civil Rule 12(b)(6),  

                                                                                                                                      



we need not reach its decision in the alternative to grant summary judgment under Civil  

                                                                                                                                             



Rule 56.  

          



V.          CONCLUSION  



                       The superior court's judgment is AFFIRMED.  

                                                                                



             44         8  WILLISTON ON  CONTRACTS  §   19:21,  at  365  (4th  ed.  2010).  



             45         Id.  at  363.  



             46         Kazan  v.  Dough  Boys,  Inc.,  201  P.3d  508,  524-25  (Alaska  2009).  



             47         See  8  WILLISTON  ON  CONTRACTS  §  19:21,  at  363;  Wassink  v.  Wassink,  763  



  P.2d  971,  975  (Alaska  1988)  ("Normally  agreements  between  private  parties  are  upheld  

  and  enforced  by  courts.   However,  authorities  hold  that  an  agreement  exempting  a  party  

  from liability for future  willful or negligent conduct should  not  be  enforced where  the  

  interest  of  the  public  is  involved.").  



                                                                        -17-                                                                7472
  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC