Should Parties Mediate Even When They Hold Opposing Positions?

Everybody knows in the SD FL you have to mediate unless you can convince the Court that mediation would be futile.

But would it be futile if the parties hold opposite positions?

According to our soon-to-be-newest-11th-Circuit judge, that's a pretty lousy reason:
Here, Defendants assert that mediation would be futile because Plaintiff has failed to join a necessary party, Plaintiff has not submitted certain paperwork with respect to her ERP benefits distribution, and the parties hold disparate positions concerning Plaintiff’s document-penalty claim. None of these reasons convince the Court that this case is unsuitable for mediation. Mediation is not futile simply because the parties hold contrary stances on the issues to be litigated. The parties in a legal dispute are presumed to have different views of the case, and the purpose of mediation is to attempt to reach a compromise.
Isn't it funny how some folks laud alternative dispute mechanisms, mediations etc., except when they don't?

Go prove Grant Thornton wrong, Marty Soll!


  1. Mediation is bullshit. Let's just make each party pay $1,000.00 per case into the retired judge fund and be done with it.

  2. excuse for defendant to bill and make plaintiff brief it

  3. Forget the Borg, when it comes to mediation go all Jedi on them.

    "This is the settlement you were looking for... "


Post a Comment