Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01205/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01205-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy C. Dietz
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: TIMOTHY C. DIETZ, 

 Petitioner.

No. 16-1205

(D.C. No. 1:16-CV-00832-LTB)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BRISCOE, O’BRIEN, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Timothy C. Dietz has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. He contends that 

the district court acted without jurisdiction in staying the judgment in the underlying civil 

action after the defendant, Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, filed a notice of appeal 

and posted a supersedeas bond. 

“[A] writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy, and is to be invoked only in 

extraordinary circumstances.” In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180, 1186 

(10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Three conditions must be met 

before a writ of mandamus may issue”: (1) the petitioner “must have no other adequate 

means to attain the relief he desires”; (2) “the petitioner must demonstrate that his right to 

the writ is clear and indisputable”; and (3) “the issuing court, in the exercise of its 

discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Id. at 

1187 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 13, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-1205 Document: 01019637200 Date Filed: 06/13/2016 Page: 1 
2

Mr. Dietz contends that the district court has improperly stayed enforcement of a 

final administrative order on review in this court by permitting Cypress to post a 

supersedeas bond under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d) instead of following the stay mechanisms in 

Fed. R. App. P. 18. But the district court did not stay the ARB’s final order pending 

review in this court. Instead, the district court entered judgment on Mr. Dietz’s separate 

civil enforcement action and, consistent with Rule 62(d), stayed enforcement of the 

judgment pending appeal after approving Cypress’ supersedeas bond.

The district court acted within its jurisdiction in the enforcement action, which is a 

civil action governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. When Mr. Dietz filed his petition 

in the district court, he requested that the court “enter[] judgment in his favor,” Pet’r App. 

at 5, 8. The district court did enter judgment in his favor. And, Rule 62(d) permits an 

appellant to obtain a stay of the judgment through posting a supersedeas bond. 

While Mr. Dietz may be frustrated that judgment has been stayed in the 

enforcement action and therefore he is unable to collect on the damages award in the 

ARB’s final order, he has not demonstrated that the district court took any improper 

action. He has therefore failed to show that he has a clear and indisputable right to 

mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny his mandamus petition.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-1205 Document: 01019637200 Date Filed: 06/13/2016 Page: 2