Opinion
Civil Action No. W-01-CA-236
March 15, 2002
ORDER
The Court considers this case upon separate motions to reconsider the Court's order referring this matter to Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR"). Apparently, the parties were mistaken when they stated in their "Joint Alternative Dispute Resolution Report" filed on January 22, 2002 that "the parties have agreed to participate in non-binding mediation after initial discovery . . ." because on February 6, 2002 and February 14, 2002, the Defendant and the Plaintiff respectively filed a "Motion for Reconsideration of Order Requiring Mediation." Then on February 20, 2002, the parties filed a "Joint Motion to Vacate Order Regarding Mediation." Having reviewed the various motions, the Court finds that this matter should not have been referred to mediation because, at this point in the case, a significant question of law exists which is outcome-determinative, and mediation would be a waste of the parties resources. The Court also finds, however, if this matter is not dismissed upon Defendant Eddie Degraffenreid's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, that ADR is appropriate, and that an order referring this matter to ADR will be entered at that time. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Vacate Order Regarding Mediation is GRANTED and the Court's Order referring this matter to ADR is VACATED. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff's and Defendant's Motions for Reconsideration of Order Requiring Mediation are DENIED AS MOOT.