Opinion ID: 625950
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Compulsory Mediation

Text: Dr. Pieczenik requested that the district court compel mediation by each of the defendants individually, and states that the district court erred in denying this request. In denying the motion, the district court stated that the defendants “[had] no interest in mediation, particularly given that currently pending before the Court is a motion by Defendants to dismiss the amended complaint.” Order 2, Dec. 2, 2010. Whether to compel mediation is within the district court’s discretion, and is reviewed accordingly. See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 559 n.1 (1988) (“It is especially common for issues involving what can broadly be labeled ‘supervision of litigation’ . . . to be given abuse-of-discretion review.”). An exercise of discretion will not be disturbed “unless upon a weighing of relevant factors we are left with a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment.” Adkins v. United States, 816 F.2d 1580, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1987) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the posture of this litigation, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to compel mediation.