Does the term "all parties" in a settlement agreement need to be interpreted as "general mutual release"?

We interpret this provision as calling for a general mutual release, not a release limited to specific disputes or injuries. The ordinary meaning of the word "'all'" is "'the whole of,'" "'the greatest quantity'" or "'every member or individual component thereof.'" (City of Ukiah v. Board of Trustees (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 344, 347 [drafter could not have chosen a more inclusive word].) As a result of the settlement agreement's use of the terms "[a]ll parties" and "all claims," the literal meaning of that provision calls for a general release. Also, the language does not attempt to limit the scope of the release in any way. For example, the language does not state only particular disputes, injuries or parties are released.