Should California Courts use penalties to prevent parties from requesting a trial de novo?
Assessing penalties on parties who go on to trial after using ADR would certainly save money for the state by decreasing the number of disputes that go on to trial. For this reason several U.S. District Courts use such penalties. However, this avenue approaches coercion and therefore imposes substantial stress on the right to a jury trial. Given that ADR was first conceived to reduce the cost of courts and increase the speed of trials, this method does not seem to serve the goal of improving access to the justice system. 6. Should the amount in controversy limit be raised from $50,000? Given the strong evidence of satisfaction in ADR procedures, there does not seem to be a good reason for limiting the value of the amount of controversy to $50,000. The purported benefits of ADR, such a narrowing the issues, and creating a better relationship between the parties, are arguably more important for larger cases than smaller cases. However, the incentive to save costs on litigation are greate
