The moving defendants (the Vuletics) sought a stay of the action, alleging an abuse of process because the plaintiffs (the Carotis) failed to immediately disclose a settlement agreement reached with a co-defendant (Kegalj).
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the settlement agreement did not entirely change the adversarial landscape.
The settling co-defendant was already adverse in interest to the moving defendants prior to the settlement, and the agreement merely required him to act as a truthful witness, which did not fundamentally alter the litigation's adversarial orientation.
