Enforcement of State Annexed-Arbitration Rules in Federal Courts with Diversity Jurisdiction: Towey v. Catling

Authors

John S. Mackey

Abstract

Both state and federal court systems are swamped with litigants. This fact is so widely recognized, repeating it almost seems unnecessary. Courts experiment with a variety of approaches just to pump some of this litigious bilge into alternative forums for resolution. The state of Hawaii sought to lighten its overburdened docket with a Court Annexed Arbitration Program.2 It provides for mandatory submission of certain tort claims to arbitration.' It is non-binding and either party may obtain a trial de novo at its conclusion.4 However, to do so is not without risk. Pursuit of a trial de novo gambles not only with the possibility of a less favorable outcome, but also with payment of the opponent's attorney's fees should one fail to improve upon the arbitrators judgment by at least 15%. 5 Disincentives such as this potential penalty are a common and integral element of an effective mandatory arbitration program.6 Without penalties there exists little, if any, reason for a dissatisfied party not to take a second bite at the apple.

Recommended Citation

John S. Mackey, Enforcement of State Annexed-Arbitration Rules in Federal Courts with Diversity Jurisdiction: Towey v. Catling, 1991 J. Disp. Resol. (1991)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol1991/iss2/8