RulesofCivilProcedure.com Civil Procedure · Every State

Rule 3.869.General requirements for complaint procedures and complaint proceedings

Division 8. Alternative Dispute Resolution · Chapter 3. General Rules Relating to Mediation of Civil Cases · Article 3. Requirements for Addressing Complaints About Court-Program Mediators · Adopted 2009 · no amendments on record · Last verified July 29, 2026

In one sentenceRule 3.869 sets the baseline steps a court’s complaint procedure must include: a coordinator who logs and reviews complaints, notice to the mediator, an independent investigation when needed, a final decision by the presiding judge, and prompt written notice of the outcome.

Full Text of Rule 3.869

Text sizeJump to: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

(a) Submission and referral of inquiries and complaints to the complaint coordinator All inquiries and complaints should be submitted or referred to the complaint coordinator.
(b) Acknowledgment of complaint The complaint coordinator must send the complainant a written acknowledgment that the court has received the complaint.
(c) Preliminary review and disposition of complaints The complaint coordinator must conduct a preliminary review of all complaints to determine whether the complaint can be informally resolved or closed, or whether the complaint warrants investigation.
(d) Procedure for complaints not resolved through the preliminary review The following procedures are required only if a complaint is not resolved or closed through the preliminary review.
(1) Mediator’s notice and opportunity to respond The mediator must be given notice of the complaint and an opportunity to respond.
(2) Investigation and recommendation
(A) Except as provided in (B), the complaint must be investigated and a recommendation concerning court action on the complaint must be made by either an individual who has experience as a mediator and who is familiar with the rules of conduct stated in article 2 or a complaint committee that has at least one such individual as a member.
(B) A court with eight or fewer authorized judges may waive the requirement in
(A) for participation by an individual who has experience as a mediator in conducting the investigation and making the recommendation if the court cannot find a suitable qualified individual to perform the functions described in
(A) or for other grounds of hardship.
(3) Final decision The final decision on the complaint must be made by the presiding judge or his or her designee, who must not be the complaint coordinator or an individual who investigated the complaint before its submission for final decision.
(e) Notice of final action
(1) The court must send the complainant notice of the final action taken by the court on the complaint.
(2) If the complaint was not closed during the preliminary review, the court must send notice of the final action to the mediator.
(f) Promptness The court must process complaints promptly at all stages.
(g) Records of complaints The court should maintain sufficient information about each complaint and its disposition to identify any history or patterns of complaints submitted under these rules.

Plain-English Summary

Rule 3.869 is the backbone of the complaint article — it lists the minimum steps every court’s local complaint procedure has to include, from intake through final decision. Complaints start with the complaint coordinator, who logs the inquiry, sends the complainant written acknowledgment, and conducts a preliminary review to see whether the matter can be resolved informally or closed without further process. Most complaints end there.

If a complaint survives that first look, the rule adds more structure. The mediator has to be told about the complaint and given a chance to respond. Someone with mediation experience — either an individual or a committee that includes one — has to investigate and recommend an outcome; only a small court of eight or fewer authorized judges can skip that experience requirement, and only if it cannot find a qualified person or faces some other hardship. Whatever the recommendation, the final call belongs to the presiding judge or a designee, and that person cannot be the same one who coordinated intake or ran the investigation.

The rule closes with housekeeping duties: notify the complainant of the outcome in every case, notify the mediator too if the complaint made it past the preliminary stage, handle every complaint promptly, and keep enough records to spot patterns across complaints over time.

Advisory Committee Comment

The following comment is published by the Judicial Council of California alongside the rule itself — not commentary from this site.

Judicial Council staff have developed model local rules that satisfy the requirements of this rule. These model local rules were developed with input from judicial officers, court administrators, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program administrators, court-program mediators, and public commentators and are designed so that they can be readily adapted to the circumstances of individual courts and specific complaints. Courts are encouraged to adopt rules that follow the model rules, to the extent feasible. Courts can obtain copies of these model rules from the Judicial Council’s civil ADR program staff. Subdivision (a). Coordination of inquiries and complaints by a person knowledgeable about mediation is important to help ensure that the requirements of this article are followed and that mediation confidentiality is preserved. Subdivision (c). Courts are encouraged to resolve inquiries and complaints about mediators using the simplest, least formal procedures that are appropriate under the circumstances, provided that they meet the requirements stated in this article. Most complaints can be appropriately resolved during the preliminary review stage of the complaint process, through informal discussions between or among the complaint coordinator, the complainant, and the mediator. Although complaint coordinators are not required to communicate with the mediator during the preliminary review, they are encouraged to consider doing so. For example, some complaints may arise from a misunderstanding of the mediator’s role or from behavior that would not violate the standards of conduct. These types of complaints might appropriately be addressed by providing the complainant with additional information or by informing the mediator that certain behavior was upsetting to a mediation participant. The circumstances under which a complaint coordinator might informally resolve or close a complaint include, for example, when (1) the complaint is withdrawn; (2) no violation of the rules of conduct appears to have occurred; (3) the alleged violation of the rules of conduct is very minor and the mediator has provided an acceptable explanation or response; and (4) the complainant, the mediator, and the complaint coordinator have agreed on a resolution. In determining whether to close a complaint, the complaint coordinator might also consider whether there are or have been other complaints about the mediator. Subdivision (d). At the investigation and recommendation stage, all courts are encouraged to consider using a complaint committee comprised of members with a variety of backgrounds, including at least one person with experience as a mediator, to investigate and make recommendations concerning those rare complaints that are not resolved during the preliminary review. Courts are also encouraged to have a judicial officer who is knowledgeable about mediation, or a committee that includes another person who is knowledgeable about mediation, make the final decision on complaints that are not resolved through the preliminary review.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is the complaint coordinator?

Rule 3.869 does not name a particular position — it is whoever the court designates to receive complaints, acknowledge them in writing, and conduct the preliminary review.

What happens if a complaint is not resolved during the preliminary review?

The mediator gets notice and a chance to respond, a person with mediation experience (or a committee including one) investigates and recommends an outcome, and the presiding judge or a designee makes the final decision.

Can a small court skip the requirement for an experienced mediator to investigate?

Only a court with eight or fewer authorized judges may waive that requirement, and only if it cannot find a qualified person or shows other hardship.

Who makes the final decision on a mediator complaint?

The presiding judge or a designee, and that person cannot be the complaint coordinator or whoever investigated the complaint.

Amendment History

Rule 3.869 adopted effective July 1, 2009, effective date extended to January 1, 2010.

Source & verification. Rule text is reproduced verbatim from the Judicial Council of California. Adopted by the Judicial Council of California. Last verified July 29, 2026. · Official source
Also known as: how mediator complaints are investigated californiacomplaint coordinator court mediatorpreliminary review mediator complaintrule 3.869 california rules of court