## Facts

- Multiple slavery-related suits were consolidated in an MDL in the Northern District of Illinois.
- Plaintiffs identified themselves as formerly enslaved African-Americans and descendants of formerly enslaved African-Americans.
- Plaintiffs sought monetary and injunctive relief from corporate defendants alleged to have profited from the trans-Atlantic slave trade or the use of slave labor.
- Plaintiffs asserted, among other theories, unjust enrichment and quasi-contract based on an alleged property interest in the fruits of ancestors’ unpaid labor.
- The court previously directed plaintiffs to file a motion to appoint a special master by a set deadline, but plaintiffs instead filed a motion to appoint a mediator, stating they sought “a mediator or a special master.”
- Defendants opposed the request; plaintiffs filed no reply.
- The motion presented a case-management question in light of federal policy favoring ADR.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal district court may appoint a mediator and require parties to participate in mediation over a party’s objection absent authorization in local rules, a statute, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or a valid exercise of inherent judicial power.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to appoint a mediator.
- The court held it lacked authority under the ADR Act of 1998, the district’s local rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or inherent powers to compel mediation in the manner requested.
- The court noted plaintiffs’ failure to reply to defendants’ opposition as an additional procedural consideration supporting denial.

## Legal Principles

- The ADR Act of 1998 encourages ADR and permits districts to implement programs, but it does not itself supply unlimited authority for compulsory mediation in any case or format.
- A court may require participation in mediation only when authorized by applicable local rules, a statute, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or properly bounded inherent judicial authority.
- Inherent powers support docket management but do not justify imposing a court-created, mandatory mediation regime on nonconsenting parties without a recognized legal basis.
- Absent an authorizing ADR framework in local rules or other governing authority, the court will not compel mediation over a party’s objection.

## Conclusion

The court refused to appoint a mediator because no applicable local rule, statute, Federal Rule, or permissible use of inherent authority empowered it to force unwilling parties into mediation in this MDL.


In re African-American Slave Descendants’ Litigation, 272 F. Supp. 2d 755 (N.D. Ill. 2003)