court properly granted a motion for involuntary dismissal under section six in ninety six on the basis of alleged release contained in the settlement agreement from a different case and shared abrasives would argue do this or that that decision was wrong because the trial court focused solely on one provision within the agreement and did not consider the ingredient in its and because the judge focused only on that one  provision there was a mistake she should consider the because it would have led to the conclusion that the case before you was not made to be included in that settlement agreement or in their release i w abrasives is a family owned business that treats metal props they treat them in the factory and they also create machines that treat now products that go into production facilities like ford and general motors defendants edward and edward c the share many were father and son employees of the plaintiffs and left the employment of the plaintiffs and at that time the plaintiff sought to enjoying the defendants from taking with them certain trade that order there was a subsequent motion for temporary restraining order to restrain the defendants from contacting the customers appointive that women are injunction was granted there was a subsequent were to show cause for violating that  e the following year there was an stipulation by the defendants with regard to those rules to show cause and the case proceeded down at the prior to the conclusion of the discovery of the defendant's tried to dissolve the motions or or the preliminary injunctions that were entered against them that was denied by the trial court and after the at the conclusion of discovery the person gauged in motion practice cross motions for summary judgment and those were argued on june ninth of twenty fifteen that dates important because i'm june third of twenty fifteen in an unrelated federal court case there was a settlement conference that federal court case was between the same plaintiff and the same defendants and it was an allegation of the sensually defamation based upon an e mail that one of the defendants had sent to a customer of the plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff products one sitting that claims filed in federal court  was based on the e mail that was sent by the defendant the plaintiff in that case was represented by different counsel the defendants were represented by different counsel and as the settlement agreement that's at issue before the court today articulate  that claim was defended under an insurance policy so there was insurance for the claim of defamation brought against the defendants in that sterile court action so on june third two thousand fifteen there was a settlement conference in the federal court case and the parties came to an agreement and said well if you look at that it says including but not limited to it has got included that limiting which however if you go back into the settlement agreement in one part of the settlement agreement the action is defined as a federal court action on to say that in five days the case is going to be dismissed by which stipulation and those actions and there's they'll be kept well later on in the case each one of those things goes to show that there was no intent by the plaintiff the state court case i would represent to the court that that's what causes you to sit waiting now then what the language including but not limited to well i think that's the that's the issue they were getting to an end to the extent that thi understood governor and when you look at some of the other cases that you cited the hoffman case the farm credit case and he said the number of pieces in there for instance in the banking world you know there were several cases where i had a individual had by side and it has think about limited to language and in those cases that the person that had the will learn to say well you've released me from my second loan i don't have to pay on it and the court said no no no that's not what this intended by that because you clearly if you wanted to have that second case require that second longer least you would have referenced it in this agreement you only referenced this past this particular case and that's what you have here well we have reference to the federal court case in it's by itself i would agree with you that's what it seems to said but that's why when you look at the other language that's contained within agreement and it only says that particular case or how much you read that you would read it to mean the cost of action related to really is a reality that they knew about it but that singularly being aware of it when you again i would refer to focusing only on that particular part of the agreement and that's why each one of the cases when it talks about when you have this type of situation where you know you have to suffer claims of some one thing you still have this other claim aka like the bengals for instance you don't tend to release those i would argue to that it would have been easily enough to define the action because you know to a point they knew the other we're not signed on there anywhere is having consented to it there's no reference to the state court action and on the follow up there's no follow up action so there is no stipulation in the stake or there is no joint motion to dismiss so we would ask that this court reverse the trial court and send it back to the trial court for that evidence cherry hearing relative to the evidence that would establish that it was not intended to be included i can consider a more practical explanation as to why it was commercially reasonable to offer a general release here rather than a specific release in this particular case that they did have actual knowledge of the additional claims in his argument that here however they're trying to escape this bedrock principle and the poor should not allow them to do that from manically position is that they admit to knowing about the claim at the time that they drafted proposed reviewed and executed the general release that's fatal to their cla one provision of it obviously agreement which was limited and a second provision which was very broad and it was at that point that they determined that there was an ambiguity there was a conflict between those two visions and although i'm not going to go into the language that is being brought but also saying these particular claims and that's the particular language so here there is no corresponding limited scope or at least there's just a mutual these and what i'm usually sick knowledge is that the action arises if you use it if i'm sorry and knowledge is the action that arises out of it uses expansive language including but not limited to rather the narrow rather than anything that would narrow its reach importantly there's no similar conflict and the release was executed on the second was there one years there's some dates here that don't seem to and they have the briefing schedule on the summer first of two thousand and fifteen one is correct i guess now it seems that or maybe it was that maybe i misunderstood the date but here you are it appears as if they were entered in two thousand and fifteen these two councils were pursuing separate tracks and they weren't somehow connected in fact miss long was counsel of record in both cases at the time so it's not just that plaintiffs was the s both actions it's also that ms long at an appearance and was counsel of record in both actions no i don't happen to believe that her presence in both action is dispositive of the issues i think that for the focus is really on whether or not  the party had knowledge of the additional claims but the extent of that argument is being made i would push back and suggest it doesn't carry much weight because she did know about both actions as she was counsel of record set forth each of the claims and separate when that into a separate limited scope release or over considering the cases for light at home by the parties the most frequent result from setting forth a number of cases or cla and having a broad general east is that it's often used to limit or to narrow the covers of the least to only those planes arising out of the list of actions now as a the court  case out of which and then there's also the recently refiled twenty seventeen state court action in locality which appears to near the prior claims that were dismissed pursuant to the settlement as such a some contacts as to why they may have thought this to be uprooted cision but i agree with you wholeheartedly that had to be to the extent analysis to be a lie we should only look at the four corners and if there is no ambiguity within the four invalidate the release in the in the federal court definition is that we think the releases fine but this is whether or not the defendants have a right to assert the release here in the state court case and with respect to that when you go through the cases or counsel pointed out that you know the issues that were related to hofmann the hof in court still rely and on the fact that it wait a minute if you wanted to release that other case that you knew about and there's a long litany of cases that are said in our brief where there were multiple claims that were known about in the court said no those are not released because they weren't specifically referenced so just being aware of them i would argue that this court almost creates the presumption that if you're aware of it you should put it in there and if you identify a specific claim which they did here and then you have broad language which is just like what counsel was talking about with respect to hofmann you are going to have an ambiguity because now you've referenced the specific action and you've defined it and then when you ran you try to say it and it's all this other stuff  and with respect to one of the cases that the first one on which was but that there's going words in that we release specifically on that release and that was an incident was a car accident case they settled one thing the plaintiff tried bring another claim the court said no you released it that release contained language that included the provision that this releases all claims including burros not mentioned in this release so in that case with item by the defense there was a specific statement that said the release participating in this matter