California > Federal > USBC Eastern > EDC Forms
Bankruptcy Dispute Resolution Program Questionnaire EDC 3-079 - California
| Bankruptcy Dispute Resolution Program Questionnaire Form. This is a California form and can be used in EDC Forms USBC Eastern Federal . |
|
||||||
 Get this form for FREE as a print-only pdf |
|||||||
|
Please select a division. Sacramento Division Fresno Division Modesto Division UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BANKRUPTCY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAM QUESTIONNAIRE _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Our records indicate that you recently represented a client or yourself in a case that was referred to the Bankruptcy Dispute Resolution Program (BDRP). This is a new program in this District and we need your help to evaluate its effectiveness. Please complete this questionnaire and return it to: Juanita Walker, BDRP Program Coordinator, United Bankruptcy Court, Court, Ms. Gay Parker, Program Coordinator, United States States Bankruptcy Carlene B. Krewer, Program Coordinator, United States Bankruptcy Court, United States Courthouse, 501 IBox 5276, Modesto, Sacramento, California 958142500 Street, Suite 3-200, 2501, Fresno, California 93721. P.O. Tulare Street, Suite California 95352. 2322. confidential, will be used solely to evaluate the program, and will not be known to the court, This information is other attorneys, the Resolution Advocate, or the parties. Only aggregate information will be reported. Case Name: Case No.: Proceeding: Adversary No.: Resolution Advocate: A. 1. Evaluating the BDRP Conference OUTCOME As a result of referral to the BDRP, the disputed matter was: (Please check all that apply.) Resolved before the BDRP conference. (If so, why? Resolved at the BDRP conference. Resolved within approximately one month after the BDRP conference. Not resolved by the BDRP, but it helped us get closer to a resolution of the matter. Not resolved by the BDRP conference and it had little impact on the matter. Not resolved by the BDRP conference and it was detrimental to a resolution of the matter. (If so, why? ) ) Chapter No.: For each statement below, please indicate whether you agree or disagree by circling a number using the following scale. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A 2. A fair settlement was reached as a result of the BDRP conference. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. I believe the parties will comply with the terms of the settlement reached as a result of the BDRP conference. There was no settlement, but the BDRP conference was helpful; for example, it narrowed or clarified the issues. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 EDC 3-079 (New 1/30/06) American LegalNet, Inc. www.USCourtForms.com 1 5. Please check any of the following statements below which describe the impact the BDRP conference had on this matter. Enabled the clients to actively participate in the dispute resolution process. Enabled the attorneys to actively participate in the dispute resolution process. Narrowed the issues in dispute. Generated creative settlement options not otherwise considered. Hardened positions, making a negotiated outcome more difficult. Made me more realistic about the strengths and/or weaknesses of my case. B. 6. Evaluating the BDRP PROCESS When this matter was assigned to the BDRP, I was pessimistic about the benefits of mediating this matter. At least one attorney was not adequately prepared for the BDRP conference. At least one party did not participate in good faith in the BDRP conference. At least one attorney did not participate in good faith in the BDRP conference. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. At least one party did not have sufficient settlement authority. 11. At least one attorney did not have sufficient settlement authority. 12. Additional discovery was needed prior to the BDRP conference. 13. The BDRP conference was too brief to permit a it a meaningful discussion of the matter. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 14. The BDRP conference helped the parties better express 1 their personal interests, concerns and emotions. 15. The BDRP helped expedite a resolution of the matter. 16. The BDRP helped reduce the cost to litigate the matter. 17. The attempt to resolve this matter through the BDRP (as compared to litigation) helped the parties maintain a continuing relationship 18. I was satisfied with the BDRP. 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 EDC 3-079 (New 1/30/06) American LegalNet, Inc. www.USCourtForms.com 19. I would use the BDRP again. 20. Please enter the following dates, using month and year: a. b. c. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Date the issue(s) in dispute originally arose between the parties: Date the bankruptcy case was filed: Date the matter assigned to the BDRP (e.g., the adversary proceeding, motion, etc.) was filed: (mo/yr) (mo/yr) (mo/yr) 21. After the matter was assigned to the BDRP, what was the time span (in weeks): a. b. c. From assignment of the matter to the BDRP to the actual conference: From the date of the BDRP conference to the settlement, if any, of the matter: From the date of the conclusion of the BDRP conference to the next court hearing on the matter, if any: wks wks wks C. Evaluating the RESOLUTION ADVOCATE Strongly Agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A 22. The Resolution Advocate was adequately prepared to discuss the matter. 23. The Resolution Advocate was effective in getting the clients to engage in meaningful discussion of the matter. 24. The Resolution Advocate was effective in getting the attorneys to engage in meaningful discussion of the matter. 25. The Resolution Advocate was fair and impartial. 26. The Resolution Advocate adequately informed me about the purpose of the BDRP conference and my responsibilities. 27. When the Resolution Advocate was selected, I was confident in the Resolution Advocate's abilities. 28. I would use this Resolution Advocate again. 29. I was satisfied with the process used to select the Resolution Advocate. 30. Who selected the Resolution Advocate? Judge appointed Parties stipulated 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 Other (Selected by whom? ) EDC 3-079 (New 1/30/06) American LegalNet, Inc. www.USCourtForms.com D. Information about YOU 31. If you represented yourself, what was your role?: Debtor Creditor Secured Unsecured Trustee Other (Specify: ) 32. If you were the attorney for a party, whom did you represent? Debtor Creditor Secured Unsecured Trustee Other (Specify: ) 33. Prior to the BDRP conference of this matter, had you participated in an alternate dispute program for any dispute other than this one? (Answer is not limited to the
|
|||||||
