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.
467 P.3d 1083
Alaska2020Background
- Ronald and Annette Alleva (and two related businesses) own downtown Anchorage property next to Bean’s Café (soup kitchen) and Brother Francis Shelter (Catholic Social Services), which lease municipal land.
- In 2012 Ronald Alleva sued the Municipality, Catholic Social Services, and Bean’s Café for trespass and nuisance, alleging ongoing illegal conduct by the charities’ clients (drug use/sales, bodily waste, assault, camping, etc.).
- The 2012 case settled for $30,000; the settlement expressly released the Municipality, Bean’s Café, and Catholic Social Services from "any and all claims" related to the Allevas’ property, including "any future claims arising out of or relating to the conduct of guests or invitees" (explicitly including trespass).
- In 2018 the Allevas filed a new suit alleging essentially the same trespass/nuisance harms (and adding inverse condemnation), referencing but not attaching the 2012 settlement and asserting the new suit concerned only post‑settlement acts.
- The Municipality (with Catholic Social Services joining) moved to dismiss under Alaska R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), attaching the 2012 settlement; the Allevas conceded the settlement’s authenticity but argued it could not be considered on a 12(b)(6) motion because it was not attached to the complaint and that post‑settlement conduct gave rise to new claims.
- The superior court treated the settlement as part of the pleadings, dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), alternatively granted summary judgment; the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a document referenced in the complaint but not attached may be considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion | Allevas: settlement was outside the pleadings and could not be used to dismiss without converting to summary judgment | Municipality: complaint explicitly referenced the settlement and authenticity was not disputed, so the court may consider it on 12(b)(6) | Court: May consider documents specifically referenced in complaint whose authenticity is not questioned without conversion (adopts Branch rule) |
| Whether the 2012 release bars the 2018 claims for allegedly post‑settlement conduct | Allevas: release of "future claims" is disfavored and ambiguous; they sue only for conduct occurring after the release | Municipality: release language is broad and unambiguous and covers claims arising from the same conduct alleged earlier | Court: Release unambiguously covers claims "arising out of or relating to" defendants’ guests, including future trespass; claims barred |
| Whether the court erred by not converting the motion into a motion for summary judgment to permit discovery | Allevas: reliance on an outside document required conversion and discovery opportunity | Municipality: conversion unnecessary because document was within pleadings and authenticity undisputed | Court: No error; conversion not required; alternatively summary judgment would be appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449 (9th Cir. 1994) (documents referenced in complaint whose authenticity is unquestioned may be considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
- Ahwinona v. State, 922 P.2d 884 (Alaska 1996) (Alaska precedent allowing consideration of attachments to complaint on motion to dismiss)
- Petroleum Sales, Ltd. v. Mapco Alaska, Inc., 687 P.2d 923 (Alaska 1984) (release bars subsequent claims reasonably ascertainable at time of settlement)
- Martech Constr. Co. v. Ogden Env’t Servs., Inc., 852 P.2d 1146 (Alaska 1993) (broad release language can preclude later claims that were reasonably ascertainable)
- Kazan v. Dough Boys, Inc., 201 P.3d 508 (Alaska 2009) (policy favoring enforcement of settlement agreements)
- Wassink v. Wassink, 763 P.2d 971 (Alaska 1988) (agreements exempting liability for future willful or negligent conduct may be unenforceable where public interest is implicated)