Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR HJC

DATE TYPED 03/02/05 HB 360/HJCS

SHORT TITLE Unfair Trade Practice Mediation Requirements

SB

ANALYST Ford

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

FY05

FY06

Minimal --

See Narrative

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

Duplicates

SB118/SJCS

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

The House Judiciary Committee substitute for House Bill 360 requires the parties in a court ac-

tion for a private remedy pursuant to the Unfair Practices Act to enter into early mediation at the

request of one of the parties. The mediation requirement does not apply to actions seeking in-

junctive relief.

The bill requires that a party to a court action may request mediation within 30 days of the ser-

vice of summons and complaint. If the request is made, the parties shall choose a mutually ac-

ceptable mediator and enter into mediation within 60 days of the appointment of the mediator. If

the parties cannot agree on a mediator, the court shall appoint one.

The costs of the mediator are capped at $50 for the person bringing the suit if the parties enter

early mediation within 60 days of the appointment of the mediator. The remainder of the costs

for mediation shall be borne by the other party.

House Bill 360/HJCS -- Page 2

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The bill requires the courts to appoint a mediator in cases where the parties cannot agree on an

acceptable mediator, which may result in minimal cost increases for the courts. Some courts

have existing mediation or arbitration programs and may choose to use their existing programs to

implement the bill. Courts without an existing program would most likely appoint a private

mediator.

The bill may also result in savings to the courts, which could off-set cost increases. To the extent

that parties resolve their disputes in early mediation, the costs of trials would be avoided.

CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP

The House Judiciary Committee substitute for House Bill 360 duplicates the Senate Judiciary

Committee substitute for Senate Bill 118.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

Identifying an appropriate mediator may be a challenge in some areas of the state. If parties are

unable to agree on a mutually acceptable mediator, the court shall appoint one. Each court will

have to determine how to implement this requirement given the various resources available in

their areas. Courts that have existing mediation programs in place may simply direct the parties

to participate in those services. Courts without a program may choose to appoint a private me-

diator. In some areas of the state, it may be somewhat challenging to find a neutral mediator to

appoint.

EF/lg