*320The Commission’s suit against Haas was settled before any responsive pleading was filed. No issues which were raised or could have been raised in that proceeding were argued to the court. Haas obviously recognized the impropriety of undertaking excavation proceedings without the Commission’s approval and agreed to discontinue them, consenting to a restraining order for that purpose. That order, while imposing the restraint, also recognized the on-going consideration of Haas’ development application, promising filing certification by a date certain. If the parties were required by the entire controversy doctrine to anticipate litigating the many issues raised in the present proceeding, it would have been necessary for them to reserve every potential issue which they could anticipate or to agree (if legally permissible1) that the entire controversy doctrine would not apply.
The Commission’s lawsuit against Haas was resolved before any formal response was filed, and no issues from that case were presented to the court. Haas acknowledged the improper nature of proceeding with excavation without the Commission’s approval and agreed to halt the activity, consenting to a restraining order. This order not only enforced the restriction but also acknowledged the ongoing review of Haas’ development application, with a commitment to file certification by a specified deadline. If the entire controversy doctrine had required the parties to address all potential issues in the current case, they would have needed to either reserve every conceivable issue or agree—if legally permissible—that the doctrine would not apply.
The Commission's case against Haas was resolved prior to the filing of any formal response. None of the issues that were brought up or could have been brought up during that case were presented to the court. Haas acknowledged the inappropriateness of conducting excavation activities without the Commission's consent and agreed to cease these actions, consenting to a restraining order for this purpose. This order not only imposed the necessary restrictions but also acknowledged the ongoing review of Haas' development application, with a commitment to file certification by a specified date. If the entire controversy doctrine required the parties to foresee and address the various issues now in contention, they would have needed to either reserve every potential issue they could foresee or mutually agree, if legally permissible, that the entire controversy doctrine would not apply.
The Commission's action against Haas was dismissed before any formal response was filed. None of the points raised or that could have been raised in that case were raised before the court. Haas recognized the improperness of excavation without the Commission's approval and consented to stop such activities, granting a restraining order to that effect. This order not only set the appropriate limitations, but also recognized the ongoing consideration of Haas' development application, and the obligation to file certification by a certain date. If the entire controversy doctrine had required the parties to anticipate and deal with the various issues now in dispute, they would have had to have reserved every possible issue they could anticipate or agreed, if legally possible, that the entire controversy doctrine would not apply.
The Commission's action against Haas was settled before any formal answer was filed. None of the matters that were raised or could have been raised in that case were before the court. Haas recognized the unlawfulness of excavation activities without the Commission's permission and agreed to stop such activities, consenting to a restraining order to that effect. This order not only imposed the required restrictions but also recognized the continuing review of Haas' development application and promised to file certification by a certain date. If the entire controversy doctrine demanded that the parties anticipate and resolve all the issues now in dispute, they would have had to either reserve every possible issue they could anticipate or, if legally allowable, mutually agree that the entire controversy doctrine would not apply.