Mediation Case Law Teaching Videos

Subject Area

Enforcement

Loading...

Media is loading
 

Document Type

Video

Publication Date

11-27-2022

Comments

Playtime: 2:30 minutes

This video provides losing plaintiff perspectives in six different coercion/duress cases:

  • In re Marriage of Shah, G046448, 2013 WL 1898317 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. May 8, 2013), unpublished/noncitable (finding no duress when plaintiff's lawyer, who had filed a lien against plaintiff's property, told plaintiff that if he did not give up some claims it would mean starting the whole trial from the very beginning, which plaintiff could not afford).
  • Menaged v. City of Jacksonville Beach, Fla., No. 3:11–cv–586–J–12JBT, 2013 WL 461999 *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2013) report and recommendation adopted, 2013 WL 492543 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (rejecting claims of mediator misconduct when it was alleged that the mediator was “pushy,” was insistent that the settlement agreement was in plaintiff's best interest, and told plaintiff that “Going to court would be humiliating” and “They would be attacking you the whole time”).
  • Jing Jing Dan v. Rambla Vista Enterprises, LLC, B252050, 2014 WL 6679922 *3 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Nov. 25, 2014) unpublished/noncitable (rejecting argument that agreement should not be enforced because the defendant was elderly, suffers “from hearing loss and impaired vision, was ‘exhausted by the stress of the mediation negotiations and the upcoming trial,’ and felt pressured to sign the stipulation for settlement quickly when he received it late at night”).
  • Barnes v. Fischer, No. 9:11–CV–583 (NAM/DEP), 2015 WL 364236 *2 (N.D. N.Y. Jan. 27, 2015), appeal dismissed (Apr. 30, 2015) (finding no duress when plaintiff claimed the magistrate told him, “‘This is your first and last chance to settle because it would never happen again so [you] had better take advantage of this settlement opportunity[,]’ thus creating ‘duress, pressure, stress strain and overwhelming anxiousness for plaintiff to sign this ambiguous document”’).
  • In re A.R., No. 11–12–00266–CV, 2014 WL 2767119 *3 (Tex. App. Eastland June 12, 2014) (enforcing judgment based on mediated agreement rejecting claims that “disabilities--which include a hearing loss, dyslexia, and limited reading comprehension--combined with stress and anxiety, prevented her from understanding the effects of the MSA and the Rule 11 agreement,” and that the mediator failed to accommodate her disabilities with an overnight break).
  • Pierce v. Pierce, 128 So.3d 204, 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“That appellee may have been fatigued and distressed by the labor [of the day-long mediation], and later suffered second thoughts, these facts, without more, do not provide grounds for setting aside an otherwise valid agreement.”).

Download
Additional Files
Stories Mediation Parties Tell Part 1.srt (3 kB)

Share

COinS