Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05049/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05049-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Agave, LLC
Appellant
Jose Aguirre
Appellant
J & J Sports Productions, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSE AGUIRRE, individually, d/b/a 

Agave Mexican Grill and Tequila Bar; 

AGAVE, LLC, an Oklahoma corporation, 

d/b/a Agave Mexican Grill and Tequila 

Bar, 

 Defendants - Appellants.

No. 15-5049

(D.C. No. 4:13-CV-00771-TCK-TLW)

(N.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before GORSUCH, HOLMES, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Defendants-Appellants appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss 

for insufficient service of process. This matter is before us on the responses to our order 

directing the Appellants to demonstrate any basis in law for this court’s exercise of 

appellate jurisdiction over this nonfinal decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (limiting 

appellate jurisdiction to review of final decisions).

In response, Appellants do not dispute that the district court’s order is not final. 

Rather, they assert that the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, provides the statutory basis 

for this appeal.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 20, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-5049 Document: 01019462222 Date Filed: 07/20/2015 Page: 1 
2

The All Writs Act is not an independent grant of appellate jurisdiction and is not a 

substitute for an appeal from a final judgment. See United States v. Copar Pumice Co., 

Inc., 714 F.3d 1197, 1210 (10th Cir. 2013) (“Mandamus is not a substitute for appeal 

after final judgment . . . .”). Although we may treat Appellants’ notice of appeal as a 

petition for a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), mandamus is “a drastic 

remedy that is invoked only in extraordinary circumstances . . . to correct a clear abuse of 

discretion, an abdication of the judicial function, or the usurpation of judicial power.” Id.

(internal citations and quotations omitted). 

We do not see here the extraordinary circumstances that would support treating 

this appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we decline to treat this 

appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus and we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Jane K. Castro

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-5049 Document: 01019462222 Date Filed: 07/20/2015 Page: 2