United Settles With Passenger

Perhaps in unexpectedly quick fashion, Plaintiff Dr. David Dao settled today with United Airlines after he was and randomly selected and removed from an oversold flight to make room for commuting crew members. His lawyers claimed he suffered a concussion, broke his nose and lost teeth during the ordeal. Dao can be seen hitting his head on an armrest and later with blood on his face in cell phone videos posted by other passengers on the flight. The company has since promised it will no longer use officers to forcibly remove paying customers from its flights. The incident occurred on April 9th and has caused a huge backlash against the airline on social media ever since. Early settlements are possible when both sides have problems. Typically, such lawsuits would take some time to reach a conclusion. There were some accounts of the passenger resisting and other things allegedly in his past that may have affected his ability to recover damages. Initially, United referred to Dao as "disruptive and belligerent," and praised employees for following "established protocols." United was obviously keen on mitigating public opinion damage after so much outrage by the traveling public was expressed online. Surely, this will be a future case study for public relations and risk management. In an official statement, United said they reached "an amicable resolution of the unfortunate incident that occurred aboard flight 3411. We look forward to implementing the improvements we have announced, which will put our customers at the center of everything we do." There is no shame in early resolution on either side and the deal is to remain confidential. Still, there will be plenty of speculation on whether the payment was large or small and if it even contained a non-monetary component, such as free future travel. See more here-- http://bit.ly/2qc5sCg and http://lat.ms/2qd4Z5D and http://cnnmon.ie/2qcRFy2

NCAA Student Athlete Settlement Site This Summer

The NCAA and eleven Division I conferences agreed to create a nearly $209 million fund for the benefit of current and former NCAA Division I Basketball and Football Bowl Subdivision student athletes to settle the monetary claims portion of the grant-in-aid class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken has granted preliminary approval to the proposed settlement of a lawsuit related to the difference in the value of a traditional college athletic scholarship and a new version that covers the full cost of attendance. The deal aims to provide money to about five years' worth of men’s basketball, women’s basketball and football players whose scholarships were limited by NCAA rules to basically tuition, room, board, books and fees. The judge wanted to create a procedure under which athletes could either dispute the amounts they would receive or claim that they are entitled to a share of the settlement if they are not initially identified as being covered by the agreement. As such, a website will be established that will allow athletes to see an estimate of the amount of money to which they would be entitled if the settlement receives final approval. The settlement does not impact another claim challenging the NCAA’s cost-of-attendance-based limits on the compensation athletes can receive while playing college sports. In those cases, the plaintiffs are seeking an injunction that would nullify the current limits. Athletes identified as being entitled to settlement money will be notified by mail, beginning in early August, but they also will be able call, email or write the claims administrator if they believe they should be covered and they do not receive the notification. The agreement maintains cost of attendance as an appropriate dividing line between collegiate and professional sports. The NCAA and conferences maintain they only settled this case because the terms are consistent with Division I financial aid rules, which allow athletics-based aid up to the full cost of obtaining a college education. See more here-- http://usat.ly/2pqvVvC and http://on.ncaa.com/2pFUsfk

Early Neutral Evaluation: Alternative to Evaluative Mediation

In the latest issue of The Florida Bar ADR Section's New & Tips, I explore a type of Alternative Dispute Resolution that is more often used outside Florida. Early Neutral Evaluation or ENE is evolving as an effective form of ADR, given the continued high cost of litigation. This process is a corollary of mediation that puts the neutral in the role enhancing direct communication between the parties about their claims and supporting evidence. ENE can provide an assessment on the merits of the case by a neutral expert in an early reality check for clients and lawyers alike. This helps to identify and clarify the central issues in dispute, assist with discovery (including E-discovery) and can streamline case management. Early Neutral Evaluation can: - Enhance direct communication between the parties about their claims and supporting evidence; - Provide an assessment of the merits of the case by an experienced legal neutral, amounting to a reality check for clients and lawyers; - Identify core issues in dispute while assisting with discovery planning (including electronically stored information); and - Facilitate settlement discussions when requested by the parties before the evaluation. A court-appointed neutral with expertise in the subject matter typically hosts an informal meeting of clients and counsel, once the parties request ENE. Following presentations consisting of a confidential exchange of factual information, the evaluator identifies areas of agreement, clarifies the issues and encourages the parties to enter into any stipulation or agreement that is feasible, including settlement. The parties’ formal discovery, disclosure and motion practice rights are fully preserved. The confidential evaluation is not shared with the trial court. If no settlement is reached, the case remains in litigation, but likely with the litigants better informed as to the risks, amount of work still necessary and the monetary estimate of continuing toward trial. Read more here-- http://bit.ly/2oEXDa6

Nuclear Option: Mediation

A multibillion-dollar fight over who should pay for the San Onofre nuclear plant failure will go to mediation with the mediator from the recent NFL owners and players settlement, according to a joint filing with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the California Public Utilities Commission. Lawyers report that Layn Phillips will host an initial conference by telephone and then in-person mediation sessions this summer. Phillips, a former federal prosecutor and judge, will try to resolve the complicated dispute over almost $5 billion in costs stemming from the premature shutdown of the California coastal power plant amid a radiation leak in 2012. Any settlement would have to be approved by the federal appeals court, which took the case last year when consumers sued the commission and Edison over the original terms of a settlement agreement. The commission which ordered the latest round of negotiations, also would have to approve any revised agreement. The 2,200-megawatt nuclear plant along the Pacific failed after newly installed replacement steam generators leaked radiation. Majority plant owner Edison opted to permanently shutter the facility in 2013. The following year, state regulators approved a settlement deal allowing the utility to recover 70 percent of the $4.7 billion in premature closure costs from customers, as opposed to shareholders. Edison later disclosed its executives met privately with utility regulators at a luxury hotel, negotiating a framework for the deal eventually approved in 2014. Those backchannel communications between utility executives and regulators are under criminal investigation by the California Attorney General’s Office. The mediation effort agreed to by Edison and consumers aims to resolve a federal court case filed by the group Citizens Oversight shortly after regulators approved the settlement. As public criticism of the original settlement terms mounted, the Public Utilities Commission ordered the San Onofre record reopened. While the terms from 2014 remain in place, regulators ordered the two sides to begin new settlement talks this year and now the parties will go to mediation. Interestingly, earlier this month, arbitrators at the International Chamber of Commerce resolved an arbitration case between Edison and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, which manufactured the equipment that led to the plant failure in 2012, awarding Edison a fraction of the damages the utility had sought. The Chamber also ordered Edison to pay $58 million in legal fees to Mitsubishi. The Japanese manufacturer is seeking to keep portions of the evidence submitted in the arbitration case confidential. The federal appeals court has ordered regular updates to the negotiations. See more reported here-- http://bit.ly/2nE84bd and a statement of mediation from the court here-- http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/mediation/

Ham4Arb

Who knew Hamilton was a fan of arbitration? Ron Chernow's best-seller Alexander Hamilton, upon which the new musical is based, chronicles drafting the Constitution, forming the first political parties, and Hamilton's early career as a lawyer achieving amicable settlements through Alternative Dispute Resolution. Apparently, Hamilton was reported to prefer arbitration over litigation. Chernow recounts matters that Hamilton resolved by arbitration, such as shipping disputes. As arbitration figures prominently in the area of consumer agreements, it seems relatively modern, but arbitration has deep roots in our country. Hamilton's busy legal practice made him New York's premier lawyer, with an elite clientele that included the State of New York. Chernow states Hamilton was not alone in his preference for arbitration, as many practitioners of that era preferred it to litigation. In the early years of our nation, arbitration reached a high level of utilization, particularly in commercial disputes, and that continued until a time when the ebb and flow of opinions once again pushed litigation to the forefront and created what was perceived as a judicial hostility toward arbitration-- particularly by allowing the revocation of agreements to arbitrate. The enactment of the Federal Arbitration Act in 1925 established arbitration agreements as valid, irrevocable and enforceable over the last century. Throughout this time, arbitration has been a pivotal part of our dispute resolution mechanisms. While arbitration is by no means a major thread in the overall fabric of Chernow's biography of Hamilton, the references to it are of importance and instructive to all ADR practitioners. The fundamental reasons for its heavy utilization at the time of our nation's formation continue today, particularly in the commercial context. In light of Hamilton's support for arbitration, it's ironic that his final controversy in life was resolved by a duel, a lethal form of dispute resolution says Professor Mazadoorian who analyzes this biography through an ADR lens more here-- http://bit.ly/2n8y1hX

Can Trump U. Settlement Objector Opt Out?

This week, a Florida lawyer and former Trump University student who paid $19,000 in tuition after being upsold to a "Gold Elite" program objected to a proposed $25 million settlement that would end lawsuits against President Trump’s real estate investing education seminars. The proposed settlement is expected to pay around fifty cents on the dollar for what students initially paid to attend the now-defunct program. The class action deal resolved claims that Trump University falsely promised that Donald Trump himself had hand-picked the instructors and that the program was an “accredited university.” Most class action settlements allow individual class members to opt out of the deal just prior to final approval. The facts of this case, in which class members had an opportunity to opt out before the two sides reached a settlement, are particularly unusual. Typically classes are certified at the time of settlement, so class members receive notice of their opt-out rights at the same time they are informed of settlement terms. There’s surprisingly little precedent to guide the court on this issue. Because of the objection filed, San Diego U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel could delay the settlement or even call the entire deal into question. The plaintiff seeking to opt out maintains that by not offering a formal opportunity to opt out, the settlement violates her due process rights and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff's counsel even agreed to waive its litigation fees and costs in order to assure the judge overseeing the case that the firm’s only interest was getting the best possible deal for Trump University students. See more here-- http://bit.ly/2nkEt5j and http://bit.ly/2nkNqvb and http://bit.ly/2mGHzU4 and http://bit.ly/2mGHzU4

Did Mediation Disrupt Law?

Mediation was once viewed with the same suspicion found in the present disruption of industries and professions. After all, it was boldly called Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Over the past couple of decades in Florida, we have vastly reduced the number of disputes going to trial, such that less than two percent of cases actually go that way. Because of skilled mediators and the embrace of the process by the bench and counsel, parties are participating in less formal court proceedings, having been encouraged to engage in early resolution of disputes in a cost effective manner. Trial courts remain available for the minority of legal matters unable to be resolved through facilitated negotiation. ADR processes offer litigants court-connected opportunities to resolve their disputes without judicial intervention. In Florida, this has resulted in one of the most comprehensive court-connected mediation programs in the country. The Florida Dispute Resolution Center (DRC) was created during the mid-'80s to provide assistance to the courts in developing ADR programs and to conduct education and research on ADR in general. Legislation some thirty years ago resulted in Chapter 44, Florida Statutes, Mediation Alternatives to Judicial Action. This law granted civil trial judges the statutory authority to refer cases to mediation or arbitration, subject to rules and procedures established by the Supreme Court of Florida. The Supreme Court duly established minimum standards and procedures for qualifications, certification, professional conduct and training for mediators and arbitrators who are appointed pursuant to this chapter. Since then, the statute has been revised several times and procedural rules, certification qualifications, ethical standards and continuing education requirements for mediators have been implemented. Currently, rules requiring mediators of filed cases in circuit and family court to be certified are being debated and were recommended by the ADR Section of The Florida Bar as outlined in a recent post on this blog. The ADR Rules & Policy Committee of the Supreme Court of Florida will next consider and likely recommend such changes. See more here-- http://bit.ly/2lTmIN0 and http://bit.ly/2lTiCEj and http://bit.ly/2mrhTbA and http://bit.ly/2mrxyr9