Cited by

Inc., (quotations omitted).

See Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc., (“Leave to amend should be freely granted unless it results in prejudice to the other party.”).

Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc.

he 6 settlement agreement of the parties” and that the parties’ settlement agreement has “absolutely no effect on the trustee’s duty to provide information to a beneficiary.” “[District] courts have the inherent power to summarily enforce a settlement agreement as a matter of law when the terms of the agreement are clear and unambiguous.” Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props ., Inc., (quotations omitted) .

DECISION “[A] district court shall treat a motion to enforce a settlement agreement as it would a motion for summary judgment[.]” Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc.

Minn. Stat. § 572.35 (2022); see Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props ., Inc., (“An agreement entered into as compromise and settlement of a dispute is contractual in nature.”).

Minn. Stat. § 572.35 (2022); see Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc., (“An agreement entered into as compromise and settlement of a dispute is contractual in nature.”).

See Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc., (stating that the “[s]ettlement of claims is encouraged as a matter of public policy”).

A settlement agreement is “contractual in nature.” Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc.

DECISION Generally, “[s]ettlement of claims is encourag ed as a matter of public policy.” Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc.

7 Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc. , Hughes v. Micka , -11 business entity, not a natural person.

A settlement agreement is “contractual in nature.” Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc. , 1 (Minn. 2008).

See Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Properties, Inc., -72 (Minn. 2008).

29, 1991), overruled on other grounds by Lloyd F. Smith Co. v. Den-Tal-Ez, Inc., see also Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc., (acknowledging that the “court of appeals has required a district court to rule on a motion to amend”).

Ct. App. 2014); see Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc. , (“An agreement entered into as compromise and settlement of a dispute is contractual in nature.”).

19, 1985); see also Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc. , (“[District] courts have[] the inherent power to summarily enforce a settlement agreement as a matter of law when the terms of the agreement are clear and unambiguous.”) (second alteration in original) (quotations omitted).

A settlement agreement “is contractual in nature.” Voicestream Minn., Inc. v. RPC Properties, Inc.

“An agreement entered into as compromise and settlement of a dispute is contractual in nature.” Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., I nc.

Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc., -72 (Minn. 2008).

See Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc., (“[A] settlement agreement can be enforced by an ordinary action for breach of contract.

A settlement agreement “is contractual in nature.” Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Prop s., Inc.

“Settlement of claims is encouraged as a matter of public policy.” Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc.

“Settlement of claims is encouraged as a matter of public policy.” Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc.

Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc., -72 (Minn. 2008).

District courts have “the inherent power to summarily enforce a settlement agreement as a matter of law when the terms of the agreement are clear and unambiguous.” Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc., d 267, 272 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

He acknowledged at oral argument that the district court may characterize a settlement-enforcement request as a motion for summary judgment under Voicestream Mpls., Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc., (holding that a district court shall treat a motion to enforce a settlement agreement as it would a motion for summary judgment).

“Settlement of claims is encouraged as a matter of public policy.” Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc.

“[District] courts have the inherent power to summarily enforce a settlement agreement as a matter of law when the terms of the agreement are clear and unambiguous.” Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc., (quotation omitted).

“[L]eave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Id.; Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc.

Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Properties, Inc., (citing Mr. Steak Inc. v. Sandquist Steaks, Inc., 309 Minn. 408, 410, ).

See VoiceStream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc.

DECISION I. “Settlement of claims is encouraged as a matter of public policy.” Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc.

such as if an amended claim is not viable or would not withstand a motion for summary judgment, Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Properties, Inc.

See Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc., (noting that a motion to amend is properly denied “when the additional claim could not survive summary judgment”).

P. 15.01 “should be freely granted, except where to do so would result in prejudice to the other party.” (considering whether trial court erred by not granting party’s motion to amend complaint); accord Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Props., Inc., (“Leave to amend [pursuant to Minn. R. Civ.