Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00417/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00417-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

1The court shares the plaintiff’s articulated concerns, however, regarding the

“binding” effect of a mediation or the extent of finality of “the decision of the mediator”.

Usually, mediators do not make decisions, they merely facilitate the parties’ agreement. In

any case, this order should be interpreted by the parties with the following understandings:

(1) the court recognizes a difference between mediation and arbitration; (2) the court does

not contemplate any decision-making by a mediator, binding or otherwise; (2) this order is

limited to mediation.

2

Paragraph 15 of the agreement provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 

“In the event that a resolution cannot be reached

through mediation, either party may file for

binding arbitration under the rules of the

American Arbitration Association. The parties

agree that the decision of the mediator or

arbitrator shall be final and may be entered as a

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CARLTON HARRISON, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05CV417-M

) [WO]

GOSPEL LIGHT PUBLICATIONS, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER ON MOTION

The court has reviewed the defendant’s Motion to Compel Mediation/Arbitration,

filed on 4 May 2005 (Doc. # 5), and the plaintiff’s response to the motion, filed on 27 May

2005 (Doc. #9). It appears that neither party disputes the provision in the agreement that

requires the parties to mediate disputes arising from the agreement.1 However, the parties

differ on (1) whether mediation is “binding”,2

 and (2) whether the fraud alleged by the

Case 2:05-cv-00417-VPM Document 10 Filed 07/05/05 Page 1 of 2
judgment in any court of competent jurisdiction

and enforced accordingly.”

(Doc. # 9, Exhibit A)

plaintiff in Count II of the complaint is an appropriate subject matter for mediation or

arbitration.

Given the parties’ acknowledgment that they at least contemplated mediation of

disputes and inasmuch as their agreement provides for a mediation structure, it is ORDERED

as follows:

1. The motion to compel mediation - and mediation only - is GRANTED.

2. The parties shall confer and schedule mediation of their dispute on or before

1 August 2005, and they are encouraged to attempt to resolve their dispute

through this means.

3. The parties shall jointly notify the Clerk of the court of the outcome of

mediation on or before 18 August 2005.

4. The motion to compel arbitration is DENIED at this time. If the parties are

unable to settle their dispute through mediation, the defendant is hereby

granted leave to refile its motion to compel arbitration on or before 1

September 2005.

DONE this 5th day of July, 2005.

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00417-VPM Document 10 Filed 07/05/05 Page 2 of 2