28 U.S.C. § 652

Jurisdiction

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Consideration of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Appropriate Cases.—Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary and except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), each district court shall, by local rule adopted under section 2071(a), require that litigants in all civil cases consider the use of an alternative dispute resolution process at an appropriate stage in the litigation. Each district court shall provide litigants in all civil cases with at least one alternative dispute resolution process, including, but not limited to, mediation, early neutral evaluation, minitrial, and arbitration as authorized in sections 654 through 658. Any district court that elects to require the use of alternative dispute resolution in certain cases may do so only with respect to mediation, early neutral evaluation, and, if the parties consent, arbitration.(b)Actions Exempted From Consideration of Alternative Dispute Resolution.—Each district court may exempt from the requirements of this section specific cases or categories of cases in which use of alternative dispute resolution would not be appropriate. In defining these exemptions, each district court shall consult with members of the bar, including the United States Attorney for that district.(c)Authority of the Attorney General.—Nothing in this section shall alter or conflict with the authority of the Attorney General to conduct litigation on behalf of the United States, with the authority of any Federal agency authorized to conduct litigation in the United States courts, or with any delegation of litigation authority by the Attorney General.(d)Confidentiality Provisions.—Until such time as rules are adopted under chapter 131 of this title providing for the confidentiality of alternative dispute resolution processes under this chapter, each district court shall, by local rule adopted under section 2071(a), provide for the confidentiality of the alternative dispute resolution processes and to prohibit disclosure of confidential dispute resolution communications.(Added Pub. L. 100–702, title IX, § 901(a), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4659; amended Pub. L. 105–315, § 4, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2994.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–315 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to alternative dispute resolution jurisdiction for provisions relating to arbitration jurisdiction.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesException to Limitation on Money Damages

Pub. L. 100–702, title IX, § 901(c), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4663, provided that notwithstanding establishment by former section 652 of this title of a $100,000 limitation on money damages with respect to cases referred to arbitration, a district court listed in former section 658 of this title whose local rule on Nov. 19, 1988, provided for a limitation on money damages of not more than $150,000, could continue to apply the higher limitation, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–315, § 12(a), Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2998.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 39 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Hays & Co., as Tr. for Monge Oil Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 885 F.2d 1149 (3rd Cir. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hays & Co., as Tr. for Monge Oil Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 885 F.2d 1149 (3rd Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “” 28 U.S.C.A. § 652 (a)(1)(B). Other district courts to be specified later by the Judicial Conference of the United States may only allow the referral to arbitration upon consent of the parties.”

Indus. Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607 (1980). “1591 , 28 U. S. C. § 652 (8). Where toxic materials or harmful physical agents are concerned, a standard must also comply with § 6 (b) (5), which provides: "The Secretary, in promulgating standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical agents under this subsection,…”

Olam v. Cong. Mortg. Co., 68 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 1999). · cites it 2× “” 28 U.S.C. § 652 (d). While this Act had not yet become law at the time the mediation in this case occurred, it became law well before' defendants’ filed their motion to enforce the settlement agreement — and plaintiffs might argue that local rules sanctioned by this statute…”

Savage & Assocs., P.C. Ex Rel. Teligent, Inc. v. Mandl (In Re Teligent, Inc.), 417 B.R. 197 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009). “provide for the confidentiality of the alternative dispute resolution processes and to prohibit disclosure of confidential dispute resolution communications,” 28 U.S.C. § 652 (d), and the *207 violation of the confidentiality provisions of a federal mediation order subjects the…”

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,761 Cyril Stone v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., Aaron Fleck, Barbara Lord, 898 F.2d 1542 (11th Cir. 1990). “The Defendants contend that the action should be referred to arbitration pursuant to 28 USC § 652 (a)(1)(A) since the parties have previously consented to arbitration in an E.”

Yelder v. United States Dep't of Def., 577 F. Supp. 2d 342 (D.D.C. 2008). · cites it 2× “Defendants classify 28 U.S.C. § 652 (d) as an Exemption 3 statute because it requires a district court, by local rule, to “prohibit disclosure of confidential dispute resolution communications.”

Jud. Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 271 F. Supp. 3d 264 (D.D.C. 2017). · cites it 2× “Rather, it reflects Congress’s understanding that “providing for the confidentiality of alternative dispute resolution and “prohibiting] disclosure of confidential dispute resolution communications,” 28 U.S.C. § 652 (d), is essential to “presenting] quality alternatives to…”

Morrison v. Colorado Permanente Med. Grp., P.C., 983 F. Supp. 937 (D. Colo. 1997). “Also, 28 U.S.C. § 652 (a)(1)(A) provides that a district court may “allow the referral to arbitration of any civil action .”

Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Tpk. Comm'n, 104 F. Supp. 2d 511 (W.D. Pa. 2000). “” See 28 U.S.C. § 652 (d). As directed by Congress, the District Courts of Pennsylvania have adopted provisions addressing the confidentiality of mediation communications and documents.”

Facebook, Inc. v. Pac. Nw. Software, Inc., 640 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011). “6-12(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 652 (d). The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.”

In re City of Stockton, 475 B.R. 720 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2012). “28 U.S.C. § 652 (d). Whatever goodwill, confidence, and lines of communication that may have been established during the pre-filing neutral evaluation process deserve to be fostered with the certainty that will be useful in the discussions during this case.”

Fed. Deposit Ins. v. White, 76 F. Supp. 2d 736 (N.D. Tex. 1999). · cites it 2× “2994 , § 4(a), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 652 (a). Such local rules must “provide for the confidentiality of the alternative dispute resolution processes and [ ] prohibit disclosure of confidential dispute resolution communications.”

Show all 39 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.