Lamb v. Geovjian

• Decision Date: 02 August 1996
• Docket Number: No. 95-510,95-510
• Citation: 683 A.2d 731,165 Vt. 375
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: Lawrence LAMB, D.V.M. v. Lisa GEOVJIAN, D.V.M.

Page 731

683 A.2d 731

165 Vt. 375

Lawrence LAMB, D.V.M. v. Lisa GEOVJIAN, D.V.M.

No. 95-510.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

Aug. 2, 1996.

Robert E. Manchester of Manchester Law Offices, P.C., Burlington, for plaintiff-appellant.

Ritchie E. Berger and Sandra A. Strempel of Dinse, Erdmann, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C., Burlington, for defendant-appellee.

Before GIBSON, DOOLEY and MORSE, JJ., and PECK, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned.

GIBSON, Justice.

Plaintiff Lawrence Lamb, D.V.M., appeals an order of the Washington Superior Court granting a motion in limine filed by defendant Lisa Geovjian, D.V.M., in plaintiff's action for intentional interference with contractual relations and prospective advantage. Among other claims, plaintiff contends that the superior court erred in giving preclusive effect to a stipulated settlement in an earlier State Veterinary Board proceeding. Because we hold that plaintiff is barred by res judicata from relitigating the merits of the charges in the earlier Board proceeding, we affirm without addressing plaintiff's other claims.

Plaintiff and defendant are both licensed veterinarians in the State of Vermont. In a complaint filed in superior court on November 14, 1988, and amended on August 27, 1991, plaintiff alleged that defendant, who was then a member of the State Veterinary Board, together with four other veterinarians ^* and the director of licensing and registration, negligently and intentionally defamed plaintiff and intentionally interfered with his contractual relations.

The substance of plaintiff's claims concerned actions taken by defendant in the course of investigating and resolving complaints that plaintiff had engaged in unprofessional conduct. Defendant was the Board member designated to conduct the preliminary investigation of the complaints. In that capacity, defendant recommended to the Board that several of the complaints be dismissed and that the remaining complaints be investigated further, and the Board so ordered. As a committee of the whole, defendant and the other Board members then further investigated the remaining complaints and determined that charges of unprofessional conduct should be brought against plaintiff. The Attorney General, on behalf of the Board, filed a Notice of Charges with the Appeals Panel of the Office of the Secretary of State.

On October 28, 1988, prior to a contested hearing on the Board's complaint, plaintiff and the Board reached a stipulated settlement of the Board's charges. The stipulation, after noting that plaintiff continued to deny the charges against him and that the matter continued to be a disputed case, stated:

The parties are prepared to proceed to litigate all aspects of the case, but prefer to resolve their differences by way of this stipulation and in such a manner as to ensure a fair compromise between their respective contentions thus eliminating substantial expense, time and inconvenience which will necessarily result from the continuance of this litigation.

The parties further stipulated that:

2. The agreement to this Stipulation by Lawrence Lamb, D.V.M. does not constitute or imply an admission to these charges. However, Lawrence Lamb, D.V.M., strictly for and limited to the purposes of this proceeding, does not contest the allegations in the Notice of Charges in this matter and the State agrees to resolve this matter by way of this Stipulation.

Under the terms of the settlement, plaintiff continued to practice veterinary medicine, subject to conditions that he complete certain training programs and that he comply with certain monitoring and reporting requirements. Plaintiff's failure to comply with any provision of the stipulation would result in a finding of unprofessional conduct on the part of plaintiff.

In his amended complaint in superior court, plaintiff alleged that defendant had defamed "plaintiff's personal and professional reputation by encouraging, assisting and implementing [sic] members of the public to obtain other members of the public to file complaints against the plaintiff with the State Veterinary Board." Plaintiff further alleged that defendant, through her statements, had intentionally interfered with plaintiff's contractual relations and prospective advantage.

According to plaintiff's deposition testimony, defendant's wrongful statements fall into two categories: those made prior to the Board's decision to bring formal charges to the Appeals Panel, and those made after plaintiff filed his initial complaint in superior court. The latter category consisted of statements defendant allegedly made to veterinarians who were considering purchasing plaintiff's X-ray equipment. Defendant allegedly told the prospective purchasers that she did not think the X-ray equipment was worth buying, and that she believed plaintiff was "nuts" for bringing a lawsuit.

Defendant and the director of licensing and registration moved separately for summary judgment. In an order filed on June 11, 1992, the superior court granted summary judgment on all counts in favor of the director of licensing and registration.

With respect to defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court held that defendant was entitled to immunity to the extent she was acting within the scope of her position as a member of the Board. The court, however, denied the motion for summary judgment "to the extent that defamatory comments may have been made outside the scope of her state position, and on the issue of interference with contractual relations/prospective advantage." Specifically, the court found that a question of fact remained concerning defendant's statement about "the quality of plaintiff's x-rays." As for the statement that plaintiff was "nuts," the court held that "the remark could not reasonably have been taken in its literal sense," and thus could not support a defamation action as a matter of law. With respect to the claim of intentional interference with contractual relations and prospective advantage, the court concluded that questions of fact remained concerning defendant's statement about plaintiff's X-ray equipment, "along with the allegation that defendant encouraged others to complain about plaintiff."

Plaintiff took no appeal from the June 11, 1992 order. Defendant, however, moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the superior court. This Court dismissed defendant's collateral appeal. Lamb v. Bloom, 159 Vt. 633, 635, 622 A.2d 505, 507 (1993) (mem.).

On March 9, 1993, defendant moved in limine to prohibit plaintiff from introducing evidence pertaining to the merits of the charges of unprofessional conduct previously brought by the Attorney General against plaintiff. In an order filed June 12, 1995, the superior court granted defendant's motion and barred plaintiff

from introducing evidence (1) seeking to challenge the acts/omissions set out in the Attorney General's "Notice of Charges" and (2) to establish that defendant should not have recommended to the Attorney General that the "Notice of Charges" be brought, because such evidence is not relevant to the substantive remaining counts.

In a motion to amend the June 12 order, plaintiff argued that the order in limine effectively terminated his intentional interference claim and thus constituted a final, appealable order. Defendant opposed the motion. In a stipulation filed on July 18, 1995, plaintiff agreed to withdraw his motion to amend, and to refrain from filing an appeal from the June 12 order until his defamation claims were resolved. In a stipulation filed on September 12, 1995, plaintiff agreed to dismiss his defamation claims with prejudice, but without prejudice to his right to appeal the June 12 order, which the parties agreed was a final order with respect to the intentional interference claim. The present appeal followed.

Despite the protracted proceedings in the trial court, the parties present a narrow issue on appeal: whether the superior court erred in giving preclusive effect, in plaintiff's intentional interference action, to plaintiff's stipulated settlement of the charges brought by the State Veterinary Board. The parties agree that, if there was no error, the order granting defendant's motion in limine resolves plaintiff's intentional interference claim in favor of defendant.

A trial court has broad discretion in its pretrial evidentiary rulings. Ball v. Melsur Corp., 161 Vt. 35, 42, 633 A.2d 705, 711 (1993). We will affirm its rulings absent a showing that the court has withheld or abused its discretion on clearly untenable or unreasonable grounds. State v. Powers, 163 Vt. 98, 100, 655 A.2d 712, 713 (1994); State v. Cohen, 157 Vt. 654, 655 n. *, 599 A.2d 330, 331 n. * (1991) (mem.).

Plaintiff contends that, because the parties in the earlier proceeding stipulated to settlement without an evidentiary hearing and with the express intent to resolve the matter "strictly for and limited to the purposes of this proceeding," the issues were not actually litigated in the earlier proceeding and so cannot be given preclusive effect in the later proceeding. Defendant argues that plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the Board's charges in the earlier proceeding, but chose not to contest those charges, choosing instead to resolve them by stipulation; consequently, plaintiff's attempt to relitigate the merits of those charges is res judicata in the present matter.

Res judicata "bars the litigation of a claim or defense if there exists a final judgment in former litigation in which the 'parties, subject matter and causes of action are identical or substantially identical.' " Berlin Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Stoneman, 159 Vt. 53, 56, 615 A.2d 141, 143 (1992) (quoting Berisha v. Hardy, 144 Vt. 136, 138, 474 A.2d 90, 91 (1984)). The doctrine does not require that claims must have been actually litigated in an earlier proceeding; rather, res judicata "bars parties from litigating claims or causes of action that were or...