• Home
  • RSS Feeds
  • Blog Archives
Subscribe to Disputing
Book an ADR Service
Call Karl Bayer
Karl Bayer's Disputing Blog - Mediator, Arbitrator, Court Master & Technical Advisor
About Karl  |  Book an ADR Service  |  Contact Karl   (214) 891-4505

Menu 
  • home
  • Mediation
  • Arbitration
  • Court Neutrals
  • Online Dispute Resolution
  • Technology
    • Intellectual Property
    • Privacy and Cybersecurity
    • E-discovery
  • Court Decisions
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • Fifth Circuit
    • Third Court of Appeals
    • U.S. Supreme Court
  • More
    • Legislation
      • Texas
      • United States
    • Healthcare
    • Guest Posts
      • John DeGroote
      • John C. Fleming
      • Rick Freeman
      • Professor Peter Friedman
      • Honorable W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
      • James M. Gaitis
      • Laura A. Kaster
      • Professor John Lande
      • Philip J. Loree, Jr.
      • Michael McIlwrath
      • F. Peter Phillips
      • Professor Alan Scott Rau
      • Professor Thomas J. Stipanowich
      • Professor S.I. Strong
      • Richard Webb
      • Glen M. Wilkerson
    • International arbitration
    • Regulation
    • Sports and Entertainment


Texas Supreme Court Enacts New Civil Procedure Rule Related to ADR in Expedited Actions

0
by Beth Graham

Friday, Mar 15, 2013


Tweet

In November, the Texas Supreme Court promulgated a number of new civil procedure rules designed to expedite court cases where the amount in controversy is less than $100,000. Initially, proposed Rule 169(d) barred both the parties and the courts from forcing a dispute to mediation where no contractual obligation to mediate existed. Following a public comment period that ended on February 1st, a revised Rule 169 became final and effective on March 1, 2013. As revised, Rule 169(d) allows a court to refer a case to an alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) procedure only once and only where there is no agreement between the parties stipulating that ADR will not be used.

As enacted, Rule 169(d)(4) states:

(4) Alternative Dispute Resolution.

(A) Unless the Parties have agreed not to engage in alternative Dispute resolution, the court may refer the case to an alternative dispute resolution procedure once, and the procedure must:

(i) not exceed a half-day in duration, excluding scheduling time;

(ii) not exceed a total cost of twice the amount of applicable civil filing fees; and

(iii) be completed no later than 60 days before the initial trial setting.

Any objections to the use of ADR procedures must be considered by the court and cases filed in a justice court are exempt from the new Rule 169. In addition, the expedited action process does not apply to suits “governed by the Family Code, the Property Code, the Tax Code, or Chapter 74 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code (healthcare liability claims).”

It will be interesting to see what effect this departure from usual court practice with regard to ADR will have on the Texas civil justice system.

Related Posts

  • Friday, September 30, 2005Friday, September 30, 2005
  • San Antonio Firefighters Association and City Agree to Mediate Before Former SCOTX JusticeSan Antonio Firefighters Association and City Agree to Mediate Before Former SCOTX Justice
  • Arbitration Nation: Data from Four ProvidersArbitration Nation: Data from Four Providers
  • Fifth Circuit Holds Policy Exclusion Applies Where Arbitrator Relied on Express Warranty in Texas Construction Defect CaseFifth Circuit Holds Policy Exclusion Applies Where Arbitrator Relied on Express Warranty in Texas Construction Defect Case
  • Texas Supreme Court Holds Agreement to Arbitrate is Not Substantively Unconscionable Despite Unenforceable ProvisionsTexas Supreme Court Holds Agreement to Arbitrate is Not Substantively Unconscionable Despite Unenforceable Provisions
  • Bicyclist Armstrong Appeals Arbitration Panel’s Decision to Supreme Court of TexasBicyclist Armstrong Appeals Arbitration Panel’s Decision to Supreme Court of Texas

Like this article? Share it!


  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
    LinkedIn

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
    X

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
    Facebook

  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
    Pinterest

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
    Email
About Beth Graham

Beth Graham earned a Master of Arts in Information Science and Learning Technologies from the University of Missouri-Columbia, and a Juris Doctor from the University of Nebraska College of Law, where she was an Eastman Memorial Law Scholar. Beth is licensed to practice law in Texas and the District of Columbia. She is also a member of the Texas Bar College and holds CIPP/US, CIPP/E, and CIPM certifications from the International Association of Privacy Professionals.

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

Recent Posts

We're Back!!!!
Feb 24, 2025
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
May 28, 2024
Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements: The Twenty-First Century Arbitration Battleground and Implications for the EU Countries
Nov 27, 2023

Featured Posts

Tips on Taking Good Remote Depositions From a Veteran Court Reporter

Online Mediation May Allow Restorative Justice to Continue During COVID-19

Remote Arbitration Best Practices: Witness Examination

Search

Legal Research

Legal Research


© 2025, Karl Bayer. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy