Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 114.04
If the parties agree on a process, the court should order the parties to participate in that process. If the parties cannot agree on an ADR process, the court shall order the parties to use a non-binding ADR process. In the event that the parties are unable to agree on a Neutral, the court shall make the selection of a Qualified Neutral. If the parties decide on a process and cannot decide on a Neutral, the court should not substitute its judgment on process. The court shall, with the advice of the parties, establish a deadline for completion of the ADR process.
Any individual providing ADR services under Rule 114 must either be a Qualified Neutral or be selected and agreed to by the parties.
Notice to Court and Neutral . In all filed actions, the parties shall notify the court administrator of any agreed Rule 114 ADR process and the name and contact information for the selected Neutral.
Upon appointment of a Neutral by the court, the court administrator shall provide a copy of the Order of Appointment to the Neutral.
Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 114.04
Implementation Committee Comments-1993
Early case evaluation and referral to an appropriate ADR process has proven to facilitate speedy resolution of disputes, and should be encouraged whenever possible. Mandatory referral to a non-binding ADR process may result if the judge makes an informed decision despite the preference of one or more parties to avoid ADR. The judge shall not order the parties to use more than one non-binding ADR process. Seriatim use of ADR processes, unless desired by the parties, is inappropriate. The judge's authority to order mandatory ADR processes should be exercised only after careful consideration of the likelihood that mandatory ADR in specific cases will result in voluntary settlement.
Advisory Committee Comments-1995 Amendments
Rule 114.04 is amended to make explicit what was implicit before. The rule mandates a telephone or in-court conference if the parties cannot agree on an ADR process. The primary purpose of that conference is to resolve the disagreement on ADR, and the rule now expressly says that. The court can, and usually will, discuss other scheduling and case management issues at the same time. The court's action following the conference required by this rule may be embodied in a scheduling order entered pursuant to Rule 111.03 of these rules.
Advisory Committee Comment-1996 Amendment
The changes to this rule are made to incorporate Rule 114's expanded applicability to family law matters. The rule adopts the procedures heretofore followed for ADR in other civil cases. The beginning point of the process is the informational statement, used under either Rule 111.02 or 304.02. The rule encourages the parties to approach ADR in all matters by conferring and agreeing on an ADR method that best suits the need of the case. This procedure recognizes that ADR works best when the parties agree to its use and as many details about its use as possible. Subdivision (a) requires a conference regarding ADR in civil actions and after commencement of family law proceedings. In family cases seeking post-decree relief, ADR must be considered in the meeting required by Rule 303.03(c). Cases involving domestic abuse are expressly exempted from the ADR meet-and-confer requirement and courts should accommodate implementing ADR in these cases without requiring a meeting nor compromising a party's right to choose an ADR process and neutral. The rule is not intended to discourage settlement efforts in any action. In cases where any party has been, or claims to have been, a victim of domestic violence, however, courts need to be especially cautious. Facilitative processes, particularly mediation, are especially prone to abuse since they place the parties in direct contact and may encourage them to compromise their rights in situations where their independent decision-making capacity is limited. The rule accordingly prohibits their use where those concerns are present.
Advisory Committee Comment-2007 Amendment
Rule 114.04(b) is amended to provide a presumptive exemption from court-ordered ADR under Rule 114 where the parties have previously obtained a deferral on the court calendar of an action to permit use of a collaborative law process as defined in Rule 111.05(a).
Advisory Committee Comments - 2022 Amendments
Rule 114.04 is amended in several important ways. It now focuses on the requirements for selection of an ADR process and of a Neutral.
Rule 114.04(c) restates and relocates former rule 114.05(c). The seven-day period for removal of the initially assigned Neutral is taken from Gen. R. Prac. 114.05(c) (effective January 1, 2020). The seven-day period for removal for cause of a substituted Neutral is taken from Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 106 (effective July 1, 2019).
Rule 114.04(d) requires notice to the court of any agreed ADR process for actions that have been filed. This provision recognizes that actions may be pending for a year or longer without being filed and that ADR may still be required or undertaken during that period. When the action is filed, the parties are required to provide notice to the court administrator (who would otherwise be unaware of the Neutral's identity and contact information) and, if the court enters an order appointing a Neutral, the court administrator is required to provide the Neutral with a copy of the appointment order. The former Rule 114.04(d) is moved to Rule 310 because it relates exclusively to family law matters.
Advisory Committee Comments - 2022 Amendments
Former Rule 114.05 is relocated to several new rules. Former Rule 114.05(a) is now part of new Rule 114.04(b).