Court seeks comments on proposed procedures for non-binding arbitration
The proposed revisions establish a 'non-exclusive' list of seven factors the presiding judge must consider before referring a case to non-binding arbitration
Justices have set a July 31 deadline for comments to a Supreme Court panel’s proposed amendments that would create a “non-exclusive” list of factors that judges must consider before referring contested civil cases to non-binding arbitration.
The Supreme Court Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy proposes to amend Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820 (Hearing Procedures for Non-Binding Arbitration).
The proposed revisions establish a “non-exclusive” list of seven factors the presiding judge must consider before referring a case to non-binding arbitration, including:
- The amount in controversy;
- The estimated cost (including attorneys’ fees and arbitrator compensation);
- Whether the underlying dispute for the action is “commercial in nature;”
- Whether the action involves “complex issues of facts or law;”
- Whether all parties are represented;
- Whether a jury trial has been demanded by any party; and
- “Any other factor” the presiding judge deems relevant.
“This ensures that judges statewide have a consistent foundation for referral without limiting them to specific exclusive factors,” Seventh Circuit Judge Michael Orfinger, the committee chair, notes in the petition.
Proposed revisions to Subsection (b)(2) provide for minimum hearing procedures that must be included in a referral to non-binding arbitration, absent agreement of the parties.
Among other things, the revisions include authorization for the chief arbitrator to require prehearing proceedings and determine whether to conduct the hearing in person, via remote technology, or a combination thereof.
Other requirements include that testimony and evidence be presented through affidavit, depositions, sworn statements, and exhibits, “with live testimony allowed only for good cause shown,” Orfinger wrote.
The proposed revisions add another requirement that the rules of evidence apply “but are to be liberally construed,” along with “any other procedures the referring court may determine are necessary.”
The Civil Procedure Rules Committee proposed revisions to subdivision (g)(3) that would have required the arbitrator to file a notice of completion of arbitration with the court on the same date the written decision is served on the parties.
But the committee is proposing allowing the arbitrator five days from the date the written decision is served on the parties to file a notice of completion of arbitration with the court.
The petition is “In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820,” Case No. SC2023-0810.
