More Civil Rules Proposals Affecting Nonbinding Arb

The Florida Civil Procedure Rules Committee is proposing amendments to conform to changes to the Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration adopted earlier this year in SC2023-1401, In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, including discovery Rule 1.280 to track Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) and for consistency between subdivisions. As pertains to ADR, Rule 1.700, Rules Common to Mediation and Arbitration, allows the use of both audio and video communication technology in mediation and arbitration, if the parties do not want to appear in person, which is the default. Under that rule, a judge may enter an order referring all or any part of a case to mediation or arbitration, unless prohibited by law. The parties to any case may agree to mediate or arbitrate any issue at any time. Except as provided in this rule, mediation and arbitration must be conducted in person. The judge may order, or the parties may stipulate, that the mediation or arbitration may be conducted through the use of communication technology. The communication technology must include both audio and video unless all parties stipulate or the judge finds cause. Changes to Rule 1.820, Hearing Procedures for Nonbinding Arbitration, purportedly make it easier to address unintended appellate court interpretation of a recent amendment to this provision (People’s Trust Ins. Co. v.Hernandez, 4D2024-3274) and to better align the rule with existing electronic filing practices. For instance, proposed Rule 1.820 (h) is suggesting the nomenclature be simply a "Request for Trial" thereby elimimating the previous process entitled what used to be called a request for trial de novo and then, more recently, a notice of rejection of arbitration decision. Additionally, if a Request for Trial is filed within 20 days of the service of the arbitration decision, the arbitration decision must not be filed until necessary to enforce the provisions of Section 44.103, Florida Statutes, after the entry of judgment. This change seems inconsistent with the routine filing of decisions under seal until such time as the parties accept an award. The Florida Bar ADR Section is considering filing a comment on the language which may require requesting an extension from the Supreme Court of Florida, but public comments are due by August 18, 2025. See more here-- https://tinyurl.com/5d25e337

NBA in FLA

Some practitioners did not take note of the change last summer that rejecting a nonbinding arbitration award went from filing for trial de novo to requiring including notice requesting rejection. Effective July 1, 2024, amended rule 1.820(h) requires a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision and request for trial. This was done to to clarify the process for rejecting an arbitrator’s decision and requesting a trial de novo. Under the amended rule, an arbitration decision is deemed rejected only if such request is filed with the court within 20 days of service of the arbitrator’s written decision. See In re Amends. to Fla. Rules of Civ. Proc., 386 So. 3d 876, 878 (Fla. 2024). In a recent Fourth District Court of Appeal case, it was held that a request for trial de novo, which does not also include a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision, does not comply with amended rule 1.820(h). If a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision and request for trial is not timely made, the decision must be referred to the presiding judge, who must enter such orders and judgments as may be required to carry out the terms of the decision as provided by Section 44.103(5), Florida Statutes. See more here-- https://tinyurl.com/2rbdjdes