Skip to content

The Off Ramp of Mediation


Being in litigation is like being on the highway in Southern California.

The road is hardly ever clear; there is traffic congestion ahead inasmuch as the courts are overloaded with pending cases.

There are unexpected delays and roadblocks, all the time.

There is stop-and-go traffic along the way while one waits for something unforeseen to clear up ahead.

There are those costs (filing fees/attorneys fees), as on a toll road, to keep moving ahead.

There are certainly collisions that take place as people argue over discovery issues or whatever.

Sometimes people run out of gas, so to speak, as resources dry up to pay for the litigation.

Sometimes one can get to his or her destination (trial), with enough patience, perseverance and pluck.

Sometimes, one reaches a dead end, as with dispositive motions.

Or crashes, as with losing at trial.

Fortunately, there are off ramps with rest stops.

One can get off the litigation highway with mediation.

Mediation is a place to take a break, check the map, and realize there are other ways to go to reach one’s destination (resolution of the dispute), saving the costs, delays, risks, and wear and tear of all of it.

Take the off ramp and try out mediation; you may not have to rejoin the bumper-to-bumper traffic.

On the other hand, if mediation doesn’t work out for you, you can always get back on the highway at the on ramp across the way.

But you don’t have to; it’s up to you to decide where you want to go and how you want to get there.


David I. Karp is a full time independent mediator of real estate and business disputes in Southern California. His website is at .

*This post is marked “Advertisement” so as to comply with the State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct if applicable.


Ramblings about Liberty Especially Religious Liberty


I was looking at the June calendar on my desk and realizing that, soon (June 14), Flag Day will be celebrated.

Flag Day led me to think about the Pledge of Allegiance and its ending phrase “with liberty and justice for all.”

So I looked at some synonyms for liberty. See, . One synonym is self-determination, a concept in mediation that I have written about extensively before. See, generally, But I digress.

A link on the synonym page brought me to the definition of liberty at . The first three definitions on that page are: (1) freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control; (2)freedom from external or foreign rule; independence; and (b) freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

Then I looked back at my calendar and realized that a certain religious holiday begins at sundown tonight, June 4: Eid al-Fitr. (Eid Mubarak, by the way, to anyone celebrating the end of Ramadan.) Moreover, the Jewish holiday of Shavuot begins in the evening of Saturday, June 8. (Chag Sameach.)

These holidays, finally, led me to think about religious liberty in our country and, among other things, those travel ban attempts not so long ago aimed at certain countries occupied mainly by Muslim residents. (I could go on about other dismaying immigration issues in the news but I will have to leave that discussion for private conversation.)

Back to religious liberty instead.

In 1790, President George Washington visited Rhode Island. “Upon landing in Newport, Pres. Washington was welcomed by political, military, religious and civic delegations. Best known among these delegations were members of [Touro Synagogue of Congregation] Yeshuat Israel, Newport’s first Jewish congregation, which was led by Moses Seixas (1744 – 1809). To answer their welcome, Washington’s response to their welcome became one of the great statements of American religious liberty.”

According to

“The original of Washington’s Letter to the Hebrew Congregations of Newport, Rhode Island is small in size, but its impact on American life is immense. In 340 well-chosen words, the Letter reassures those who had fled religious tyranny that life in their new nation would be different, that religious ‘toleration’ would give way to religious liberty, and that the government would not interfere with individuals in matters of conscience and belief. Quoting the Bible’s Old Testament, Washington writes, [¶] ‘every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.’ [¶] He continues: [¶] ‘For happily the Government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.’”

Perhaps it may be so that President Washington’s words will reach the ears of our leaders and their followers as reminders to continue to “give[ ] to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance” and that our civil liberties, so in danger of erosion, will remain our greatest ambition and our strength as a nation.

As the saying goes, “hazak, hazak, ve-nithazek, be strong, be strong and may we be strengthened.

Also, Eid Mubarak to those who celebrate Eid al-Fitr beginning tonight, and of course Chag Sameach once again.


David I. Karp is a full time independent mediator of real estate and business disputes in Southern California who sometimes writes about other things that matter. His website is at .

*This post is marked “Advertisement” so as to comply with the State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct if applicable.

Acting Against Self Interest


Sometimes a mediation session just does not result in a settlement of the dispute then and there.

As a mediator, I must and do respect the parties’ self-determination in this regard. I have written about this before, and I believe wholeheartedly in the voluntariness of the mediation process and the parties’ self-determination. See, e.g.,

Nevertheless, like other mediators who take their roles seriously as I do, I do sometimes feel as if I am somehow at fault for the settlement not occurring then and there, although I know intellectually (a) that the parties themselves are responsible for the outcome, not me, and (b) that most disputes settle later anyway, sometimes as a direct result of the mediation session.

But sometimes, I just feel that the disputants are making a mistake by not settling, even though they are convinced that they are not. I guess I feel this way sometimes, because I feel that they should have settled and that the settlement would have been a good deal for all.

But I also feel that I cannot inject into the mediation my opinion about their decision-making. As mediator, I do not believe that it is my place to judge them, although I do sometimes ask, “Do you think you are making a mistake?”.

I tell myself that there might be good reasons, and there usually are, why the case did not resolve then and there at the mediation.

It may be that the mediation was too soon (i.e., not ripe for resolution) or there may be other factors involved that preclude resolution in that moment.

For instance, in two recent mediations, the respondents, who were called upon to pay something for the settlement, adamantly claimed that they did not have the money to pay it. (Never mind that that also might mean that the respondents also did not have the money to litigate either.)

But sometimes, I admit, I just “shake my head,” (not physically but in the proverbial sense only), at their decision-making as I see it as acting against their own self interest.

We mediators can and do remind people in the dispute that they should try to avoid self-harm coming from an unresolved dispute, by, among other things: putting the past behind them; understanding and appreciating the other person’s perspective (they don’t have to agree); focusing on their own interests (i.e., managing risk and expense) not on their legal positions or arguments; taking control of uncertainties by working toward a common goal of peace; cooperating with one another (everyone wants something) and compromising (giving up something to get something).

But sometimes they cannot or will not be convinced, and act against their own self-interest, because they are: hurt (emotionally or financially), angry, insulted, embarrassed, disappointed, vindictive, or experiencing a need for justice or some other intangible award that is valuable in their mind. (There are also other psychological barriers settlement, see, e.g., Cognitive Barriers To Success In Mediation: Irrational Attachments To Positions And Other Errors Of Perception That Impact Settlement Decisions, available at .)

Even so, because we mediators believe in the voluntariness of mediation and the parties’ own self-determination, we cannot force people to settle, and we must let them live with their decisions, for good or bad, even if we believe they are acting against their own self-interest in leaving a good offer on the table.

Of course, there are also those other glorious days, too, when disputants understand and appreciate their predicament and how to get out of it, and they make their best deal, manage the risk and expense, create certainty for themselves, look ahead to peace, and find a way to live with their decisions to settle although the deal may not be optimal but only barely tolerable under the circumstances.


David I. Karp is a full time independent mediator of real estate and business disputes in Southern California. His website is at .

*This post is marked “Advertisement” so as to comply with the State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct if applicable.

How Passover and Mediation Might Be Alike


Most of us undoubtedly know the story of the exodus from Egypt. As you probably also know, Jews all over the world retell the story annually in the spring, in their observance of Passover [Pesach]. Passover begins tomorrow night and I have been thinking of how Passover and mediation might be alike.

In a remarkable paragraph of a volume in my own library, I think I found the answer. The paragraph reads:

The central meaning of Passover [Pesah] is liberation … [it being called] the season of our liberation. Another name for Passover is … the holiday of spring…. The watchwords of both spring and Pesah are rebirth and hope. Thus, the spirit of renewed optimism … [is] reinforced in a Jewish context by Passover with its trumpeting of the possibilities of liberation. Passover reminds us annually that no matter how terrible our situation, we must not lose hope.

(Strassfeld, Michael. The Jewish Holidays: A Guide and Commentary. New York: Harper & Row, 1985, pp 6-7.)

So let me cull out a few concepts here.

“No matter how terrible our situation…” People do not come to mediation unless they are in the midst of a dispute or at least a serious conflict, which may eat at them, day and night, distracting them continuously from their family life, work life, social life, and so forth. It is usually a terrible situation. They may even feel enslaved (another Passover concept), unable to foresee any release or relief from their predicament, their anxieties, uncertainties, even nightmares about their set of circumstances.

Renewed Optimism” and “Hope.” Mediation generally, and mediators in particular, can bring optimism and hope to the table, helping people to sort out their difficulties and enabling them to see a future without the relentless pain or distraction of the conflict.

Liberation.” Mediation “trumpets the possibilities of liberation” from all of the foregoing. It gives an opportunity, in private, for people to learn more about themselves, about each other, about the problems they face and their fears, and about the possible solutions to those problems. Even if mediation does not resolve their problems then and there, it often leads to a resolution at a later time.

Rebirth.” Perhaps “rebirth” is too grandiose a word for mediation, but there is the possibility, even the probability, nevertheless that things will improve as a result of mediation and that therefore peoples’ lives will be better, even renewed, thereafter.

In the final analysis, I love the observance of Passover. I even wrote some haiku about it years ago. See,

And I love mediation, its magic in helping people, and its possibility for improving their lives. Which is why I write about it too. See, e.g., ; ;, and so many other posts at .

Wishing my readers who observe Passover, a happy holiday, and to everyone, a happy life (through mediation or otherwise).


David I. Karp is a full time independent mediator of real estate and business disputes in Southern California. His website is at .

*This post is marked “Advertisement” so as to comply with the State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct if applicable.

The Emotions of Adjacent Property Disputes


When someone stands too close to us, we are uncomfortable.  If someone breaks into our home, we feel violated.  If another driver cuts us off on the road, we are upset.


Among other possible reasons, each of us has a personal space, the impingement into which, I think, threatens us in one way or another.

It occurs to me that the perceived violation of personal space (i.e, “you’re on my property”) may be one reason why mediations involving boundary disputes, easement conflicts, encroachment issues, nuisance, and the like, are so emotional and difficult for litigants to settle.

Sometimes, in these mediations, not only is there a property right at issue as to the land (or interests in the land), the dispute is complicated by the neighbors’ past — sometimes violent — acts or threats of action that have given rise to claims of assault or battery, trespass, damage to property, intentional infliction of emotional distress and so forth.

Let’s face it; angry neighbors can be provocative, vindictive, and outright mean to one another, and each action or reaction fuels the fire of further discord.

Perhaps the threat as to personal space (i.e., “this land is my land”) is one that triggers the fight-or-flight response which hijacks the amygdala and shuts off the cortex, making it hard for one to think clearly about the situation in the moment, or thereafter. See,

And this may be a reason why it is so hard for disputants to settle adjacent property disputes.

People in conflict bring to the mediation their recollections, and their intended recital, of the past turmoil; and their attorneys, as taught in law school, bring to the mediation their analysis of the past events as well.

As I see it, this reflection of the past’s upheaval exacerbates the turbulence in the present (i.e., in the mediation).

And this makes it hard for people to think clearly about resolution.

It is hard for them to switch from their focus on the past, where the problems they face started, to the present/future where the solutions to those problems may occur.

And that translates to time.

A memorable mediation took place a few years ago concerning a claim of prescriptive easement over a portion of a hillside owned by the downslope neighbor but used for recreational purposes by the upslope neighbor. The downslope neighbor was highly incensed by this encroachment and, at the mediation, was red in the face with rage. The upslope neighbor was nearly as upset.

It took nine hours to settle this matter once the disputants’ high emotions were first dealt with and then a sharing arrangement for the disputed parcel could be worked out.

Even in the short term, I have heard that, once the amygdala fires, causing such things as an increased heart rate, a release of adrenaline, shaking, sweating and so forth (ibid.), it may take 20 minutes, more or less, for those effects to wear off and for “normal” conversation to resume.

Which is why I recommend a break in the negotiation sometimes for people to cool off.

So time is one key to mediating these cases.

So is an attentive, empathic, and patient mediator with an understanding of how emotions play into the conflict and the subsequent resolution, if any.

And so are the attorneys with a realistic understanding that, even at the end of the day, the emotions may outweigh the logic of, or their desire for, resolution without trial.


David I. Karp is a full time independent mediator of real estate and business disputes in Southern California. His website is at .

*This post is marked “Advertisement” so as to comply with the State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct if applicable.

The Parties Themselves, Not Counsel, must Request Retention of Jurisdiction to Enforce Settlement Prior to Dismissal under C.C.P. Section 664.6


In two settlements, the following language was inserted into each Settlement Agreement:  “The Court shall retain jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement.”

Each case was thereafter dismissed “as requested” by the clerk upon the filing of a Request for Dismissal (on Judicial Council form CIV-110), signed by counsel only, with the following language inserted: “The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement per Code of Civil Procedure §664.6.”

The Requests for Dismissal were not accompanied by the Settlement Agreements, by attachment thereto or otherwise.

Controversies arose over the settlements and motions to enforce the settlement were made pursuant to C.C.P. § 664.6, which reads as follows:

If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.

The motions to enforce were denied on the merits.

The California Court of Appeal, Second District, Div. One, affirmed, but on the basis of lack of jurisdiction in the trial court to hear the motions, in Mesa RHF Partners v. City of Los Angeles, (2019) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ (Case no. B288355, filed March 29, 2019).

A request for the trial court to retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 “must conform to the same three requirements which the Legislature and the courts have deemed necessary for section 664.6 enforcement of the settlement itself: the request must be made (1) during the pendency of the case, not after the case has been dismissed in its entirety, (2) by the parties themselves, and (3) either in a writing signed by the parties or orally before the court.” (Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 440 (Wackeen).) The “request must be express, not implied from other language, and it must be clear and unambiguous.” (Ibid.)

The parties ask us to construe Mesa, Hill, and Olive’s requests for dismissal as section 664.6 requests for the trial court to retain jurisdiction. [fn. omitted]. We will not do so.

The request to the court that it retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 must be made by the parties. “[A] request that jurisdiction be retained until the settlement has been fully performed must be made either in a writing signed by the parties themselves, or orally before the court by the parties themselves, not by their attorneys of record, their spouses, or other such agents.” (Wackeen, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 440; Critzer [v. Enos (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1242] at p. 1254.) The Judicial Council form CIV-110 in each case was signed only by an attorney for Mesa, Hill, and Olive.

Mesa RHF Partners v. City of Los Angeles, supra, slip op. pp. 5-6.

The Court added its suggestion:

In this case, the parties could have easily invoked section 664.6 by filing a stipulation and proposed order either attaching a copy of the settlement agreement and requesting that the trial court retain jurisdiction under section 664.6 or a stipulation and proposed order signed by the parties noting the settlement and requesting that the trial court retain jurisdiction under section 664.6. The process need not be complex. But strict compliance demands that the process be followed.

Mesa RHF Partners v. City of Los Angeles, supra, slip op. p. 7.

Be careful how you document your settlement and provide for enforceability.


David I. Karp is a full time independent mediator of real estate and business disputes in Southern California. His website is at .

*This post is marked “Advertisement” so as to comply with the State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct if applicable.

What is the Big IDEA for Special Education, You Might Ask.


I am a big fan of public education. From elementary school through college (Go Bruins!), I went to public school. My children did too. This being the month in which Freemasons promote public schools (I have been a Mason for 27 years), I thought I would write about another aspect of public education, under a federal law known as IDEA.

IDEA is the “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act” (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.) I came into contact with IDEA many years ago when I mediated for three years for the Special Education Division of the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).  At the time, OAH had just become responsible for managing IDEA’s dispute resolution requirements in California. OAH has jurisdiction over the conflicts that arise between parents of special needs children and school districts.

Generally, in these conflicts, parents challenge school districts because they believe their special needs children are not receiving the kinds of services and opportunities necessary for their children to learn or learn well. The tension in these disputes arises because the parents generally want more; and school districts have limited funds and resources which must be spread among the many special needs children in the school district.

This will not be an exhaustive treatise on the law of special education, but there are a few concepts that are interesting.

To focus the discussion, one of the purposes of IDEA is “to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living.” 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A).

“A free appropriate public education,” known as FAPE, “means special education and related services that — (A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge; (B) meet the standards of the State educational agency; (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and (D) are provided in conformity with [an] individualized education program….” 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9).

In order to provide FAPE to children with special needs, schools are required to evaluate the child and develop, review and revise an Individualized Education Program (known as an IEP) on an annual basis at an IEP meeting with parents, teachers, a school district representative, and a school psychologist or other specialist(s).

Schools are also required to place the student in the “least restrictive environment” which means that children with disabilities are to be educated with children who are nondisabled to the extent possible, with supplementary aids and services if appropriate, and that special classes, separate schooling or other situations for disabled children should be utilized only if regular class placement does not work well for the child’s education.

When the parents disagree with the IEP – and parents do not have to agree with what the school thinks is FAPE – they are entitled under IDEA to challenge the IEP. Parents can bring advocates or lawyers with them to any IEP meeting; they can “reopen” an IEP whenever they believe it is warranted; they can reconvene a “case study evaluation” (CSE) which is the initial step in determining whether a child is eligible for special education. In addition, they can pursue informal negotiation at a resolution meeting and/or in mediation, and/or they can file a complaint which ultimately may be heard and decided at a contested “due process hearing” before an Administrative Law Judge. Subsequent reviews are available as well.

I have omitted a lot of detail, but the idea is always that, under IDEA, the child should receive appropriate help to learn in the best way he or she can so as to have the best free and appropriate public education possible under the circumstances.

From my experience mediating special education disputes (which I no longer do incidentally, just real estate and business disputes), I can say that school districts earnestly believe that they care about the special education children they serve; they have a great responsibility to help disabled children; they have a big heart; and they are nevertheless subject to the limitations of funding and resources. I can also tell you that parents disagree, sometimes vigorously, and therefore are proactive, diligent and assertive in protecting the rights of their disabled children.

In mediation and throughout the Special Education process, attorneys and advocates are important resources; they will remind parents that there are other options available, which may come up in negotiation: alternative assessments of the child, Special Education Itinerant Teachers (SEITs) who work with children to help them integrate into mainstream classrooms and to reach their individual goals; one on one aides; classroom pull outs; accommodations for classrooms and for testing; buses and other forms of transportation to and from school; etc.

IDEA is complicated and although mediators do not give legal advice, we can suggest that consultation with and guidance from Special Education advocates and attorneys can be helpful if a child is or should be educated specially.

David I. Karp is a full time independent mediator of real estate and business disputes in Southern California. His website is at . (Also, he sends his thanks to his cousin, Miriam, who had some input on this piece.)

*This post is marked “Advertisement” so as to comply with the State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct if applicable.

%d bloggers like this: