Rule 19 - Alternative Dispute ResolutionA. This Rule authorizes, approves and establishes a program for the use of alternative procedures to resolve disputes (ADR) in Yavapai County. The ADR Program is an alternative to litigation. Alternative processes available include, but are not limited to, arbitration, mediation, independent case evaluation, negotiation, mini-trial, summary jury trial, summary bench trial, and summary arbitration in all civil cases except for administrative appeals and lower court appeals which are not tried de novo. Domestic relations legal decision making and parenting time cases shall be processed through conciliation court.B. The purpose of this Rule is to afford litigants substantive justice while minimizing the expense and delay inherent in litigation. The Rule shall be applied and interpreted consistently with this purpose.C. The Yavapai County ADR program shall be administered by an ADR Program Manager appointed by the Presiding Judge.D. The Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Evidence shall apply only as provided in these Rules or to the extent deemed necessary by the ADR Provider, the hearing officer, or the Court after consultation with the parties.E. The Court shall order the case to a specific ADR process, unless the Court makes an affirmative finding, on the record, that the case is inappropriate for an available ADR proceeding. All proceedings, with the exception of summary judgment motions made pursuant to ARCP 56, motions to dismiss pursuant to ARCP 12(b)(1), orders to show cause and motions made pursuant to these rules are stayed pending the conclusion of the ADR proceedings ordered by the Court. The Court may make whatever other orders may be appropriate to facilitate resolution of any case.F. The ADR Provider shall be determined and compensated as follows:1. The Court shall maintain a list of Court-approved ADR providers.2. The parties may agree to choose any person to conduct the ADR proceeding, whether or not they appear on the Court-approved ADR provider list.3. If the parties cannot agree, or upon request of any party, the Court shall order that a person or persons from the Court-approved list of ADR providers conduct the ADR proceedings.4. If a case is ordered to ADR under subsection F(3), the fees charged by the ADR Provider shall be determined according to a fee schedule established by the Court, unless deferred or waived in the discretion of the Court. The Court shall not regulate, control, or determine the fees of any ADR Provider who is not appointed pursuant to subsection F(3).5. The parties shall be responsible for all costs and the fees, if any, of the ADR Provider. The fee charged for a Court connected ADR process shall be set as proposed by the Presiding Judge and approved by the Board of Supervisors.6. The fees of the ADR Provider(s) shall be borne equally by all parties, unless the parties otherwise agree, or the Court, for good cause shown, upon its own motion or motion of a party, otherwise orders.7. Failure of any party to pay an ADR Provider's fee may be punishable as contempt of Court and/or may subject the offending party to sanctions under ARCP 16(f).G. The ADR Provider shall have powers reasonably necessary to fulfill his/her responsibilities, including but not limited to the power to administer oaths or affirmations to the parties and witnessesH. The Clerk of the Superior Court shall issue subpoenas in matters assigned to ADR, and the subpoenas shall be served and enforceable as provided by law.I. Within ten days of the conclusion of ADR proceedings, the ADR provider shall give notice of the result of the ADR proceeding to the Court and all parties and submit an affidavit of fees and costs.J. The Court shall enter the result of the ADR proceeding(s) on the record. If ADR has resulted in final or partial resolution of the case, the Court may make whatever orders as may be appropriate, including an order dismissing all or part of a claim or claims.K. The Court may, from time to time, appoint ADR Commissioners, to conduct the ADR case management conferences described in paragraph D. The term "the Court," in this Rule, includes Commissioners. Parties are cautioned that Rule 19 must be read in light of Martinez v. Binsfield, 196 Ariz. 466 (2000), which held that Uniform Rule V(e) [now A.R.C.P. Rule 38.1(d) ] applies to cases assigned to mandatory arbitration, and repeated continuances granted by the Arbitrator did not provide good cause for continuing the case on the Inactive Calendar.
Added Oct. 11, 2002, effective 10/15/2002. Amended Sept. 24, 2013, effective 10/1/2013.