FEDERAL · 28 U.S.C. · Chapter 44
Jurisdiction
28 U.S.C. § 652
Title28 — Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Chapter44 — ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
This text of 28 U.S.C. § 652 (Jurisdiction) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
28 U.S.C. § 652.
Text
(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, e
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute
448 U.S. 607 (Supreme Court, 1980)
Hays and Company, as Trustee for Monge Oil Corporation v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
885 F.2d 1149 (Third Circuit, 1989)
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,761 Cyril Stone v. E.F. Hutton & Company, Inc., Aaron Fleck, Barbara Lord
898 F.2d 1542 (Eleventh Circuit, 1990)
Morrison v. Colorado Permanente Medical Group, P.C.
983 F. Supp. 937 (D. Colorado, 1997)
Savage & Associates, P.C. Ex Rel. Teligent, Inc. v. Mandl (In Re Teligent, Inc.)
417 B.R. 197 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
104 F. Supp. 2d 511 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 2000)
Olam v. Congress Mortgage Co.
68 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (N.D. California, 1999)
Fields-D'Arpino v. Restaurant Associates, Inc.
39 F. Supp. 2d 412 (S.D. New York, 1999)
Facebook, Inc. v. Pacific Northwest Software, Inc.
640 F.3d 1034 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
In re City of Stockton
475 B.R. 720 (E.D. California, 2012)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. United States Steel Corp.
877 F. Supp. 2d 278 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 2012)
Ritzer v. National Organization of Industrial Trade Unions Insurance Trust Fund Hospital, Medical, Surgical Health Benefit
807 F. Supp. 257 (E.D. New York, 1992)
Stepp v. NCR Corp.
494 F. Supp. 2d 826 (S.D. Ohio, 2007)
Federal Deposit Insurance v. White
76 F. Supp. 2d 736 (N.D. Texas, 1999)
Yelder v. United States Department of Defense
577 F. Supp. 2d 342 (District of Columbia, 2008)
Hand v. Walnut Valley Sailing Club
475 F. App'x 277 (Tenth Circuit, 2012)
Davis v. Kansas City Fire & Marine Ins.
195 F.R.D. 33 (N.D. Oklahoma, 2000)
Matter of Sargeant Farms, Inc.
224 B.R. 842 (M.D. Florida, 1998)
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice
271 F. Supp. 3d 264 (District of Columbia, 2017)
Haug v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.
944 F. Supp. 421 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1996)
Source Credit
History
(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
Editorial Notes
Amendments
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 Subsidiaries
Exception 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.
Amendments
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 Subsidiaries
Exception 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.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
28 U.S.C. § 652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/28/652.