Reported / Citable
Background
Plaintiff Alessandro F. Cervantes filed a Motion for Referral to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), requesting that the court order the parties to engage in either mediation or another form of ADR. District Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Brian C. Bajew for a Report and Recommendation. An initial scheduling conference was held on July 1, 2026, to establish a Scheduling Order governing the case.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Bajew recommended denying Cervantes’s Motion for Referral to ADR as moot. The Scheduling Order already includes a mandatory mediation requirement with a deadline of November 15, 2026. Because mediation is already ordered by the court, the plaintiff’s separate request for ADR referral serves no additional purpose and is therefore moot.
Both parties and their counsel waived their fourteen-day right to object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and agreed to have the District Court accept the findings immediately, allowing the court to act without delay.
Key Takeaways
- Courts may deny ADR motions as moot when mediation or alternative dispute resolution is already required by the scheduling order.
- Litigants should carefully review scheduling orders before filing separate ADR motions to avoid redundant procedural requests.
- Parties may waive their objection period to expedite adoption of magistrate judge recommendations by mutual agreement.
Why It Matters
This order reflects routine case management practice in federal courts, where scheduling orders typically address ADR requirements upfront. The decision underscores the importance of coordinating with the court’s initial case management directives rather than filing duplicative motions. For practitioners, it serves as a reminder to track scheduling order deadlines and ADR requirements to maintain procedural efficiency.