Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mandatory Arbitration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee hears increase to mandatory arbitration cap from $50,000 to $100,000
Summary
The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on Assembly Bill 3 to raise the monetary cap for Nevada''s mandatory nonbinding arbitration program from $50,000 to $100,000, a change sponsors say would restore the program''s reach amid inflation and rising civil filings. Stakeholders outlined amendments and concerns but no vote was taken.
The Senate Judiciary Committee took testimony on Assembly Bill 3 on a proposal to raise the maximum case value subject to Nevada's mandatory nonbinding arbitration program from $50,000 to $100,000, with the increase taking effect for cases filed on or after Jan. 1, 2026.
Supporters said the change would restore the program's reach after decades of inflation and recent shifts in caseloads. "If this amount doesn't get increased, it's likely that this program will continue to dwindle," said Adam Gans, an ADR commissioner in the Eighth Judicial District, citing statistics that civil filings in the Eighth Judicial District rose from about 17,000 in 2017 to 24,000 in 2024 and that participation in the arbitration program has fallen from about 55% to 37% of cases in the same period.
The bill and attendant amendments
Proponents described the program as a faster, lower-cost alternative to full jury trials. Erin Truman, an ADR and discovery commissioner in the Eighth Judicial District Court, told the committee the mandatory nonbinding arbitration program was created under Nevada law roughly 30 years ago (citing NRS provisions authors described as NRS 38.255 / NRS 38.250) and noted the program's typical timeline: hearings are usually completed within six months and must be completed within a year. Adam Gans said arbitration awards resolve cases in a short format and that if a party is dissatisfied they may request a trial de novo, which places the matter into the short-trial program or into regular district-court procedure if the party opts out.
Stakeholders and amendments discussed at the hearing included changes the Nevada Justice Association helped develop and that passed the Assembly. Lisonbee Brazier of the Nevada Justice Association reviewed several statutory adjustments in the reprint and described two proposed technical amendments related to how arbitrator compensation is set and to remove duplicated fee language. Brazier said the amendments update monetary thresholds and clarify where higher-value appeals are heard: awards at or below $50,000 would proceed to a one-day short trial if appealed, while awards above $50,000 would be heard by the district court.
Concerns and neutrality
Several committee members pressed on how much of the reprint originated with the Supreme Court sponsor and how much came from stakeholders. Senator James Hanson (Senator Hanson) said the original Supreme Court request appeared limited to a dollar bump and an effective-date change; he described other broad amendments as "not part of the Supreme Court's bill" and said they substantially changed the measure's scope. Commissioners Gans and Truman repeatedly said the Supreme Court had remained neutral on stakeholder amendments because the judiciary, as bill sponsor, must abstain from taking positions that could later affect constitutional or procedural questions.
Business groups raised concerns but shifted to neutrality after one provision was reverted to current law. Nick Schneider, director of government affairs for the Vegas Chamber, said the chamber had been concerned with AB3 as amended but would move to neutral if language in Section 4 were reverted to existing law. Misty Grimmer of the Nevada Resort Association said her group likewise moved to neutral after proposed language was reverted.
Public input
A small number of callers registered opposition on the phone; one caller identified as Frank Ivanov said he opposed the bill but did not detail specific statutory objections on the record.
Next steps
No formal committee vote occurred during the hearing. Sponsors said they would provide the committee with the proposed technical amendments and continued stakeholder discussions.
Ending
Proponents urged the committee to weigh the bill as a restoration of a cost-saving program they say once resolved a large share of civil disputes without full trials; opponents and some legislators said the reprinted bill includes stakeholder amendments that change more than the Supreme Court originally proposed. The committee closed the hearing and moved on to other agenda items without taking a formal vote on AB3.
