The moving parties (the Crosslinx Defendants) sought an order under Rule 49.09 to enforce a settlement reached with the plaintiff.
The parties disagreed on the scope and form of the release to be signed by the plaintiff.
The court held that without prejudice communications were admissible to determine the scope of the settlement.
The court further held that the parties bargained for a standard general release, which implicitly includes claims over and contribution/indemnity clauses, and ordered the plaintiff to execute the release with those terms included, subject to minor clarifying revisions.
