28 U.S.C. § 651 — Authorization of alternative dispute resolu-

Page 316 TITLE 28—JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE § 651 RESOLUTION’’ for ‘‘ARBITRATION’’ in chapter head- ing and amended analysis generally, substituting items 651 to 658 for former items 651 ‘‘Authorization of arbi- tration’’, 652 ‘‘Jurisdiction’’, 653 ‘‘Powers of arbitrator; arbitration hearing’’, 654 ‘‘Arbitration award and judg- ment’’, 655 ‘‘Trial de novo’’, 656 ‘‘Certification of arbi- trators’’, 657 ‘‘Compensation of arbitrators’’, and 658 ‘‘District courts that may authorize arbitration’’. § 651. Authorization of alternative dispute resolu- tion (a) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this chapter, an alternative dispute resolution process in- cludes any process or procedure, other than an adjudication by a presiding judge, in which a neutral third party participates to assist in the resolution of issues in controversy, through processes such as early neutral evaluation, me- diation, minitrial, and arbitration as provided in sections 654 through 658. (b) AUTHORITY.—Each United States district court shall authorize, by local rule adopted under section 2071(a), the use of alternative dis- pute resolution processes in all civil actions, in- cluding adversary proceedings in bankruptcy, in accordance with this chapter, except that the use of arbitration may be authorized only as provided in section 654. Each United States dis- trict court shall devise and implement its own alternative dispute resolution program, by local rule adopted under section 2071(a), to encourage and promote the use of alternative dispute reso- lution in its district. (c) EXISTING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLU- TION PROGRAMS.—In those courts where an alter- native dispute resolution program is in place on the date of the enactment of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998, the court shall examine the effectiveness of that program and adopt such improvements to the program as are consistent with the provisions and purposes of this chapter. (d) ADMINISTRATION OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAMS.—Each United States dis- trict court shall designate an employee, or a ju- dicial officer, who is knowledgeable in alter- native dispute resolution practices and proc- esses to implement, administer, oversee, and evaluate the court’s alternative dispute resolu- tion program. Such person may also be respon- sible for recruiting, screening, and training at- torneys to serve as neutrals and arbitrators in the court’s alternative dispute resolution pro- gram. (e) TITLE 9 NOT AFFECTED.—This chapter shall not affect title 9, United States Code. (f) PROGRAM SUPPORT.—The Federal Judicial Center and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts are authorized to assist the district courts in the establishment and im- provement of alternative dispute resolution pro- grams by identifying particular practices em- ployed in successful programs and providing ad- ditional assistance as needed and appropriate. (Added Pub. L. 100–702, title IX, § 901(a), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4659; amended Pub. L. 105–315, § 3, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2993.) Editorial Notes REFERENCES IN TEXT The date of the enactment of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998, referred to in subsec. (c), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 105–315, which was ap- proved Oct. 30, 1998. AMENDMENTS 1998—Pub. L. 105–315 amended section generally, sub- stituting provisions relating to authorization of alter- native dispute resolution for provisions relating to au- thorization of arbitration. Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries EFFECTIVE DATE Pub. L. 100–702, title IX, § 907, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4664, provided that: ‘‘This title and the amendments made by this title [enacting this chapter and provisions set out as notes under this section and section 652 of this title] shall take effect 180 days after the date of en- actment of this Act [Nov. 19, 1988].’’ Pub. L. 100–702, title IX, § 906, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4664, as amended by Pub. L. 103–192, § 1(a), Dec. 14, 1993, 107 Stat. 2292, provided that, effective Dec. 31, 1994, this chapter and the item relating to this chapter in the table of chapters at the beginning of part III of this title were repealed, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–420, § 3(b), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4345. Pub. L. 103–192, § 2, Dec. 14, 1993, 107 Stat. 2292, pro- vided that this chapter and the item relating to this chapter in the table of chapters at the beginning of part III of this title continued on or after Dec. 14, 1993, as if they had not been repealed by section 906 of Pub. L. 100–702, formerly set out above, as such section was in effect on the day before Dec. 14, 1993. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY Pub. L. 105–315, § 2, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2993, pro- vided that: ‘‘Congress finds that— ‘‘(1) alternative dispute resolution, when supported by the bench and bar, and utilizing properly trained neutrals in a program adequately administered by the court, has the potential to provide a variety of benefits, including greater satisfaction of the parties, innovative methods of resolving disputes, and greater efficiency in achieving settlements; ‘‘(2) certain forms of alternative dispute resolution, including mediation, early neutral evaluation, minitrials, and voluntary arbitration, may have po- tential to reduce the large backlog of cases now pend- ing in some Federal courts throughout the United States, thereby allowing the courts to process their remaining cases more efficiently; and ‘‘(3) the continued growth of Federal appellate court-annexed mediation programs suggests that this form of alternative dispute resolution can be equally effective in resolving disputes in the Federal trial courts; therefore, the district courts should consider including mediation in their local alternative dispute resolution programs.’’ MODEL PROCEDURES Pub. L. 100–702, title IX, § 902, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4663, provided that: ‘‘The Judicial Conference of the United States may develop model rules relating to pro- cedures for arbitration under chapter 44, as added by section 901 of this Act. No model rule may supersede any provision of such chapter 44, this title [enacting this chapter and provisions set out as notes under this section and section 652 of this title], or any law of the United States.’’ REPORTS BY DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES COURTS AND BY FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER Pub. L. 100–702, title IX, § 903, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4663, provided that: ‘‘(a) ANNUAL REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS.—The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall include in the annual report of the activities of Page 317 TITLE 28—JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE § 653 the Administrative Office required under section 604(a)(3) [28 U.S.C. 604(a)(3)], statistical information about the implementation of chapter 44, as added by section 901 of this Act. ‘‘(b) REPORT BY FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER.—Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act [Nov. 19, 1988], the Federal Judicial Center, in consulta- tion with the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, shall submit to the Congress a report on the implementation of chapter 44, as added by section 901 of this Act, which shall include the fol- lowing: ‘‘(1) A description of the arbitration programs au- thorized by such chapter, as conceived and as imple- mented in the judicial districts in which such pro- grams are authorized. ‘‘(2) A determination of the level of satisfaction with the arbitration programs in those judicial dis- tricts by a sampling of court personnel, attorneys, and litigants whose cases have been referred to arbi- tration. ‘‘(3) A summary of those program features that can be identified as being related to program acceptance both within and across judicial districts. ‘‘(4) A description of the levels of satisfaction rel- ative to the cost per hearing of each program. ‘‘(5) Recommendations to the Congress on whether to terminate or continue chapter 44, or, alter- natively, to enact an arbitration provision in title 28, United States Code, authorizing arbitration in all Federal district courts.’’ EFFECT ON JUDICIAL RULEMAKING POWERS Pub. L. 100–702, title IX, § 904, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4663, provided that: ‘‘Nothing in this title [enacting this chapter and provisions set out as notes under this section and section 652 of this title], or in chapter 44, as added by section 901 of this Act, is intended to abridge, modify, or enlarge the rule making powers of the Federal judiciary.’’ AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS Pub. L. 105–315, § 11, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2998, pro- vided that: ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year such sums as may be necessary to carry out chapter 44 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act.’’ Pub. L. 100–702, title IX, § 905, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4664, as amended by Pub. L. 103–192, § 1(b), Dec. 14, 1993, 107 Stat. 2292; Pub. L. 103–420, § 3(a), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4345; Pub. L. 105–53, § 1, Oct. 6, 1997, 111 Stat. 1173, provided that: ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year to the judicial branch such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of chapter 44, as added by section 901 of this Act. Funds appro- priated under this section shall be allocated by the Ad- ministrative Office of the United States Courts to Fed- eral judicial districts and the Federal Judicial Center. The funds so appropriated are authorized to remain available until expended.’’ § 652. Jurisdiction (a) CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN APPROPRIATE CASES.—Notwith- standing 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, in- cluding, but not limited to, mediation, early neutral evaluation, minitrial, and arbitration as authorized in sections 654 through 658. Any dis- trict court that elects to require the use of al- ternative 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 dis- trict court may exempt from the requirements of this section specific cases or categories of cases in which use of alternative dispute resolu- tion 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 agen- cy 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 al- ternative 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 resolu- tion processes and to prohibit disclosure of con- fidential 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 Notes AMENDMENTS 1998—Pub. L. 105–315 amended section generally, sub- stituting provisions relating to alternative dispute res- olution jurisdiction for provisions relating to arbitra- tion jurisdiction. Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries EXCEPTION TO LIMITATION ON MONEY DAMAGES Pub. L. 100–702, title IX, § 901(c), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4663, provided that notwithstanding establish- ment by former section 652 of this title of a $100,000 limitation on money damages with respect to cases re- ferred 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. § 653. Neutrals (a) PANEL OF NEUTRALS.—Each district court that authorizes the use of alternative dispute resolution processes shall adopt appropriate processes for making neutrals available for use by the parties for each category of process of- fered. Each district court shall promulgate its own procedures and criteria for the selection of neutrals on its panels. (b) QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING.—Each per- son serving as a neutral in an alternative dis- pute resolution process should be qualified and trained to serve as a neutral in the appropriate alternative dispute resolution process. For this purpose, the district court may use, among oth- ers, magistrate judges who have been trained to