The Mediator Extended a Mediator's Proposal with a 1 Week Deadline. Defendants Stalled.
Why It Matters
Understanding that extension requests often mask a defensive strategy helps plaintiffs allocate resources wisely and avoid being caught off‑guard by unexpected motions, ultimately preserving bargaining power in litigation.
Key Takeaways
- •Multiple extensions on mediator's proposal signal likely settlement stall
- •Defense may use delays to avoid costly motion preparation
- •Mediator's proposal offers a middle-ground figure for settlement
- •Judges vary: some ignore settlement talks, enforce discovery deadlines
- •Verify opponent's claims; prepare case regardless of settlement promises
Summary
The video addresses a plaintiff’s concern that the defense has repeatedly asked for one‑week extensions after a mediator presented a settlement proposal, asking whether this reflects genuine intent to settle or a stalling tactic.
The host explains that three successive extensions are generally a negative signal. Defendants often seek extra time to avoid drafting a motion opposition, preferring to push the client toward settlement when it costs less than litigation work.
He illustrates the process of a mediator’s proposal—e.g., a $450,000 offer in a $750k‑$200k dispute—and cites the adage “trust, but verify,” warning that lawyers may feign settlement interest only to file motions at the deadline. He also notes that judges differ: some will press parties to continue discovery regardless of settlement talks.
The takeaway for litigants is to treat extensions skeptically, keep the case fully prepared, and not rely on the defense’s word. Preparing for both settlement and trial preserves leverage and avoids surprise setbacks when a motion is finally filed.
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...