General rules of practice for the district courts

Yüklə 126.84 Kb.
ölçüsü126.84 Kb.
  1   2   3

(Amended rules effective January 1, 2005)

Rule 114. Alternative Dispute Resolution


Rule 114.01 Applicability


All civil cases are subject to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes, except for those actions enumerated in Minnesota Statutes, section 484.76 and Rules 111.01 and 310.01 of these rules.


(Amended effective July 1, 1997.)


Advisory Committee Comment--1996 Amendment

This change incorporates the limitations on use of ADR in family law matters contained in Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 310.01 as amended by these amendments. The committee believes it is desirable to have the limitations on use of ADR included within the series of rules dealing with family law, and it is necessary that it be included here as well.


Rule 114.02 Definitions


The following terms shall have the meanings set forth in this rule in construing these rules and applying them to court-affiliated ADR programs.

(a) ADR Processes

Adjudicative Processes

(1) Arbitration: A forum in which a neutral third party renders a specific award after presiding over an adversarial hearing at which each party and its counsel present its position. If the parties stipulate in writing that the arbitration will be binding, then the proceeding will be conducted pursuant to the Uniform Arbitration Act (Minn. Stat. §§ 572.08-.30). If the parties do not stipulate that arbitration will be binding, then the award is non-binding and will be conducted pursuant to Rule 114.09.

(2) Consensual Special Magistrate: A forum in which the parties present their positions to a neutral in the same manner as a civil lawsuit is presented to a judge. This process is binding and includes the right of appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

(3) Summary Jury Trial: A forum in which each party and their counsel present a summary of their position before a panel of jurors. The number of jurors on the panel is six unless the parties agree otherwise. The panel may issue a non-binding advisory opinion regarding liability, damages, or both.

Evaluative Processes

(4) Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE): A forum in which attorneys present the core of the dispute to a neutral evaluator in the presence of the parties. This occurs after the case is filed but before discovery is conducted. The neutral then gives an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the case. If settlement does not result, the neutral helps narrow the dispute and suggests guidelines for managing discovery.

(5) Non-binding Advisory Opinion. A forum in which the parties and their counsel present their position before one or more neutral(s). The neutral(s) then issue(s) a non-binding advisory opinion regarding liability, damages or both.

(6) Neutral Fact Finding: A forum in which a neutral investigates and analyzes a factual dispute and issues findings. The findings are non-binding unless the parties agree to be bound by them.

Facilitative Processes

(7) Mediation: A forum in which a neutral third party facilitates communication between parties to promote settlement. A mediator may not impose his or her own judgment on the issues for that of the parties.

Hybrid Processes

(8) Mini-Trial: A forum in which each party and their counsel present its position before a selected representative for each party, a neutral third party, or both, to develop a basis for settlement negotiations. A neutral may issue an advisory opinion regarding the merits of the case. The advisory opinion is not binding unless the parties agree that it is binding and enter into a written settlement agreement.

(9) Mediation-Arbitration (Med-arb): A hybrid of mediation and arbitration in which the parties initially mediate their disputes; but if they reach impasse, they arbitrate any deadlocked issues.

(10)   Other: Parties may by agreement create an ADR process. They shall explain their process in the Informational Statement.

(b) Neutral. A “neutral” is an individual or organization who provides an ADR process. A “qualified neutral” is an individual or organization included on the State Court Administrator’s roster as provided in Rule 114.12. An individual neutral must have completed the training and continuing education requirements provided in Rule 114.13. An organization on the roster must certify that an individual neutral provided by the organization has met the training and continuing education requirements of Rule 114.13. Neutral fact-finders selected by the parties for their expertise need not undergo training nor be on the State Court Administrator’s roster.


(Amended effective January 1, 2005.)


Implementation Committee Comments--1993

The definitions of ADR processes that were set forth in the 1990 report of the joint Task Force have been used. No special educational background or professional standing (e.g., licensed attorney) is required of neutrals.


Advisory Committee Comment--1996 Amendment


The amendments to this rule are limited, but important. In subdivision (a)(10) is new, and makes it explicit that parties may create an ADR process other than those enumerated in the rule. This can be either a “standard” process not defined in the rule, or a truly novel process not otherwise defined or used. This rule specifically is necessary where the parties may agree to a binding process that the courts could not otherwise

impose on the parties. For example, the parties can agree tobaseball arbitration” where each party makes a best offer which is submitted to an arbitrator who has authority to select one of the offers as fairest, but can make no other decision. Another example is the Divorce with Dignity Program established in the Fourth Judicial District, in which the parties and the judge agree to attempt to resolve disputed issues through negotiation and use of impartial experts, and the judge determines unresolved preliminary matters by telephone conference call and unresolved dispositive matters by written submissions.

The individual ADR processes are grouped in the new definitions as “adjudicative,” “evaluative,” “facilitative,” andhybrid.” These collective terms are important in the rule, as they are used in other parts of the rule. The group definitions are useful because many of the references elsewhere in the rules are intended to cover broad groups of ADR processes rather than a single process, and because the broader grouping avoids issues of precise definition. The distinction is particularly significant because of the different training requirements under Rule 114.13.


Rule 114.03 Notice of ADR Processes


(a) Notice. The court administrator shall provide, on request, information about ADR processes available to the county and the availability of a list of neutrals who provide ADR services in that county.

(b) Duty to Advise Clients of ADR Processes. Attorneys shall provide clients with the ADR information.


(Amended effective January 1, 2005.)


Implementation Committee Comments--1993

This rule is designed to provide attorneys and parties to a dispute with information on the efficacy and availability of ADR processes. Court personnel are in the best position to provide this information. A brochure has been developed, which can be used by court administrators to give information about ADR processes to attorneys and parties. The State Court

Administrator’s Office will maintain a master list of all qualified neutrals, and will update the list and distribute it annually to court administrators.


Advisory Committee Comment--1996 Amendment


This change is made only to remove an ambiguity in the phrasing of the rule and to add titles to the subdivisions. Neither change is intended to affect the meaning or interpretation of the rule.


Rule 114.04 Selection of ADR Process


(a) Conference. After service of a complaint or petition, the parties shall promptly confer regarding case management issues, including the selection and timing of the ADR process. Following this conference ADR information shall be included in the informational statement required by Rule 111.02 and 304.02.

In family law matters, the parties need not meet and confer where one of the parties claims to be the victim of domestic abuse by the other party or where the court determines there is probable cause that one of the parties or a child of the parties has been physically abused or threatened with physical abuse by the other party. In such cases, both parties shall complete and submit form 9A or 9B, specifying the form(s) of ADR the parties individually prefer, not what is agreed upon.

(b) Court Involvement. If the parties cannot agree on the appropriate ADR process, the timing of the process, or the selection of neutral, or if the court does not approve the parties’ agreement, the court shall, in cases subject to Rule 111, schedule a telephone or in-court conference of the attorneys and any unrepresented parties within thirty days after the due date for filing informational statements pursuant to Rule 111.02 or 304.02 to discuss ADR and other scheduling and case management issues.

Except as otherwise provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 604.11 or Rule 310.01, the court, at its discretion, may order the parties to utilize one of the non-binding processes, or may find that ADR is not appropriate; provided that no ADR process shall be approved if the court finds that ADR is not appropriate or if it amounts to a sanction on a non-moving party.

(c) Scheduling Order. The court’s Scheduling Order pursuant to Rule 111.03 or 304.03 shall designate the ADR process selected, the deadline for completing the procedure, and the name of the neutral selected or the deadline for the selection of the neutral. If ADR is determined to be inappropriate, the Scheduling Order pursuant to Rule 111.03 or 304.03 shall so indicate.

(d) Post-Decree Family Law Matters. Post-decree matters in family law are subject to ADR under this rule. ADR may be ordered following the conference required by Rule 303.03(c).


(Amended effective January 1, 2005.)


Implementation Committee Comments—1993


Early case evaluation and referral to an appropriate ADR process has proven to facilitate speedy resolution of disputes,and should be encouraged whenever possible. Mandatory referral to a non-binding ADR process may result if the judge makes an informed decision despite the preference of one or more parties to avoid ADR. The judge shall not order the parties to use more than one non-binding ADR process. Seriatim use of ADR processes, unless desired by the parties, is inappropriate. The judge’s authority to order mandatory ADR processes should be exercised only after careful consideration of the likelihood that mandatory ADR in specific cases will result in voluntary settlement.


Advisory Committee Comments--1995 Amendments


Rule 114.04 is amended to make explicit what was implicit before. The rule mandates a telephone or in-court conference if the parties cannot agree on an ADR process. The primary purpose of that conference is to resolve the disagreement on ADR, and the rule now expressly says that. The court can, and usually will, discuss other scheduling and case management issues at the same time. The court’s action following the conference required by this rule may be embodied in a scheduling order entered pursuant to Rule 111.03 of these rules.


Advisory Committee Comment--1996 Amendment


The changes to this rule are made to incorporate Rule 114’s expanded applicability to family law matters. The rule adopts the procedures heretofore followed for ADR in other civil cases. The beginning point of the process is the informational statement, used under either Rule 111.02 or 304.02. The rule encourages the parties to approach ADR in all matters by conferring and agreeing on an ADR method that best suits the need of the case. This procedure recognizes that ADR works best when the parties agree to its use and as many details about its use as possible. Subdivision (a) requires a conference regarding ADR in civil actions and after commencement of family law proceedings. In family cases seeking post-decree relief, ADR must be considered in the meeting required by Rule 303.03(c). Cases involving domestic abuse are expressly exempted from the ADR meet-and-confer requirement and courts should accommodate implementing ADR in these cases without requiring a meeting nor compromising a party’s right to choose an ADR process and neutral. The rule is not intended to discourage settlement efforts in any action. In cases where any party has been, or claims to have been, a victim of domestic violence, however, courts need to be especially cautious. Facilitative processes, particularly mediation, are especially prone to abuse since they place the parties in direct contact and may encourage them to compromise their rights in situations where their independent decision-making capacity is limited. The rule accordingly prohibits their use where those concerns are present.


Rule 114.05 Selection of Neutral


(a) Court Appointment. If the parties are unable to agree on either a neutral or the date upon which the neutral will be selected, the court shall, in those cases subject to Rule 111, appoint a qualified neutral at the time of the issuance of the scheduling order required by Rule 111.03 or 304.03. In cases not subject to Rule 111, the court may appoint a qualified neutral at its discretion, after obtaining the views of the parties. In all cases, the order may establish a deadline for the completion of the ADR process.

(b) Exception from Qualification. Except when mediation or med-arb is chosen as a dispute resolution process, the court, in its discretion, or upon recommendation of the parties, may appoint a neutral who does not qualify under Rule 114.12 of these Rules, if the appointment is based on legal or other professional training or experience. A neutral so selected shall be deemed to consent tot eh jurisdiction of the ADR Review Board and compliance with the Code of Ethics set forth in the Appendix to Rule 114.

(c) Removal. Any party or the party’s attorney may file with the court administrator within 10 days of notice of the appointment of the neutral and serve on the opposing party a notice to remove. Upon receipt of the notice to remove the court administrator shall immediately assign another neutral. After a party has once disqualified a neutral as a matter of right, a substitute neutral may be disqualified by the party only by making an affirmative showing of prejudice to the chief judge or his or her designee.

(d) Availability of Child Custody Investigator. A neutral serving in a family law matter may conduct a custody investigation, or evaluation only (1) where the parties agree in writing executed after the termination of mediation, that the neutral shall conduct the investigation or evaluation; or (2) where there is no other person reasonably available to conduct the investigation or evaluation. Where the neutral is also the sole investigator for a county agency charged with making recommendations to the court regarding child custody and visitation, the neutral may make such recommendations, but only after the court administrator has made all reasonable attempts to obtain reciprocal services from an adjacent county. Where such reciprocal services are obtainable, the custody evaluation must be conducted by a person from the adjacent county agency, and not by the neutral who served in the family law matter.


(Amended effective January 1, 2005.)


Implementation Committee Comments--1993

Parties should consult the statewide roster for information on the educational background and relevant training and experience of the proposed neutrals. It is important that the neutrals’ qualifications be provided to the parties so that the parties may make an informed choice. Unique aspects of a dispute and the preference of the parties may require special qualifications by the neutral.

Parties should have the ability, within reason, to choose a neutral with special expertise or experience in the subject matter of the dispute, even if they do not qualify under Rule 114.12, though it is anticipated that this will occur infrequently. Parties to mediation and med-arb processes must appoint an individual who qualifies under Rule 114.12.


Advisory Committee Comment--1996 Amendment


This rule is amended only to provide for the expanded applicability of Rule 114 to family law matters. The rule also now explicitly permits the court to establish a deadline for completion of a court-annexed ADR process. This change is intended only to make explicit a power courts have had and have frequently exercised without an explicit rule.

Rule 114.05(d) is derived from existing Rule 310.08. Although it is clearly not generally desirable to have a neutral subsequently serve as child custody investigator, in some instances it is necessary. The circumstances where this occurs are, and should be, limited, and are defined in the rule. Where other alternatives exist in a county and for an individual case, a neutral should not serve as child custody investigator.



Rule 114.06 Time and Place of Proceedings


(a) Notice. The court shall send to the neutral a copy of the Order of Appointment.

(b) Scheduling. Upon receipt of the court’s order, the neutral shall promptly schedule the ADR process in accordance with the scheduling order and inform the parties of the date. ADR processes shall be held at a time and place set by the neutral, unless otherwise ordered by the court.

(c) Final disposition. If the case is settled through an ADR process, the attorneys shall complete the appropriate court documents to bring the case to a final disposition.


(Amended effective January 1, 2005.)


Implementation Committee Comments--1993


The neutral will schedule the ADR process date unless, the parties agree on a date within the time frame contained in the scheduling order. If the neutral is selected at the time of scheduling order, such order can serve as the court order appointing the neutral. In scheduling the ADR process the neutral will attempt to accommodate the parties’ schedules.


Advisory Committee Comment--1996 Amendment

The only changes to this rule are the inclusion of titles to the subparagraphs. This amendment is not intended to affect the meaning or interpretation of the rule, but is included to make the rule easier to use.


Rule 114.07 Attendance at ADR Proceedings


(a) Privacy. Non-binding ADR processes are not open to the public except with the consent of all parties.

(b) Attendance. The court may require that the attorneys who will try the case attend ADR proceedings.

(c) Attendance at Adjudicative Sessions. Individuals with the authority to settle the case need not attend adjudicative processes aimed at reaching a decision in the case, such as arbitration, as long as such individuals are reasonably accessible, unless otherwise directed by the court.

(d) Attendance at Facilitative Sessions. Individuals with the authority to settle the case shall attend non-adjudicative processes aimed at settlement of the case, such as mediation, mini-trial, or med-arb, unless otherwise directed by the court.

(e) Sanctions. The court may impose sanctions for failure to attend a scheduled ADR process only if this rule is violated.


(Amended effective January 1, 2005.)


Implementation Committee Comments—1993


Effective and efficient use of an ADR process depends upon the participation of appropriate individuals in the process. Attendance by attorneys facilitates discussions with clients about their case. Attendance of individuals with authority to settle the case is essential where a settlement may be reached during the process. In processes where a decision is made by the neutral, individuals with authority to settle need only be readily accessible for review of the decision.


Advisory Committee Comment--1996 Amendment


This rule is amended only to incorporate the collective definitions now incorporated in Rule 114.02. This change is not intended to create any significant difference in the requirements for attendance at ADR sessions.


Rule 114.08 Confidentiality


(a) Evidence. Without the consent of all parties and an order of the court, or except as provided in Rule 114.09(e)(4), no evidence that there has been an ADR proceeding or any fact concerning the proceeding may be admitted in a trial de novo or in any subsequent proceeding involving any of the issues or parties to the proceeding.

(b) Inadmissability. Subject to Minn. Stat. § 595.02 and except as provided in paragraphs (a) and (d), no statements made nor documents produced in non-binding ADR processes which are not otherwise discoverable shall be subject to discovery or other disclosure. Such evidence is inadmissible for any purpose at the trial, including impeachment.

(c) Adjudicative Evidence. Evidence in consensual special master proceedings, binding arbitration, or in non-binding arbitration after the period for a demand for trial expires, may be used in subsequent proceedings for any purpose for which it is admissible under the rules of evidence.
  1   2   3

Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur © 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə