UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

Deborah S. Hunt 

Clerk

100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 

POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE 

CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988 

Tel. (513) 564-7000 

www.ca6.uscourts.gov

 Filed: July 12, 2016 

 

 

Mr. Michael Edward Tindall 

Law Offices 

P.O. Box 46564 

Mount Clemens, MI 48046 

Mr. Kevin S. Toll 

Law Office 

350 N. Main Street 

Unit 507 

Royal Oak, MI 48067 

 Re: Case No. 16-1532, Michael Mason v. Michelle Pichler

Originating Case No. : 2:14-cv-13047 

Dear Counsel: 

 The Court issued the enclosed Order today in this case. 

 Sincerely yours, 

 

 

s/Karen S. Fultz 

Case Manager 

Direct Dial No. 513-564-7036 

cc: Mr. David J. Weaver 

Enclosure 

No mandate to issue 

Case 2:14-cv-13047-DPH-MKM ECF No. 27, PageID.721 Filed 07/12/16 Page 1 of 3 Case: 16-1532 Document: 14-1 Filed: 07/12/2016 Page: 1 (1 of 3)
No. 16-1532

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

In re: CHRISTOPHER D. WYMAN,

Debtor.

_________________________________________

MICHAEL A. MASON, Trustee

Appellant,

v.

MICHELLE PICHLER,

Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

O R D E R

Before: GUY and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; BERTELSMAN, District Judge.*

In this non-core bankruptcy adversary proceeding pending as an original matter before 

the district court, the Trustee appeals the August 3, 2015 order adopting in part a report and 

recommendation of the bankruptcy judge, allowing the bankruptcy judge to address additional 

issues and file an amended report and recommendation, and permitting the Trustee to file an 

amended complaint. The Trustee also appeals the March 28, 2016 order denying reconsideration 

of the August 3 order. The Trustee was directed to show cause why the appeal should not be 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In response, the Trustee argues that the order is immediately 

 

* The Honorable William O. Bertelsman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of 

Kentucky, sitting by designation.

Case 2:14-cv-13047-DPH-MKM ECF No. 27, PageID.722 Filed 07/12/16 Page 2 of 3 Case: 16-1532 Document: 14-2 Filed: 07/12/2016 Page: 1 (2 of 3)
No. 16-1532

-2-

appealable on several grounds. Alternatively, the Trustee seeks the issuance of a writ of 

mandamus. 

We lack jurisdiction to review these non-final rulings of the district court. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. Although the Trustee argues to the contrary, we conclude that the district court’s rulings 

may be effectively reviewed on appeal from the final judgment in this adversary proceeding. 

Thus, the orders are not appealable as collateral orders, and there is no other basis for appellate 

jurisdiction. 

“Mandamus is a drastic remedy that should be invoked only in extraordinary cases where 

there is a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought.” United States v. Young, 424 F.3d 499, 

504 (6th Cir. 2005). To warrant relief in mandamus, the Trustee must show his right to the writ 

is “clear and indisputable.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 381 (2004) 

(quoting Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976)). Mandamus is 

not intended to be a substitute for an appeal after final judgment, and relief in mandamus 

generally is not available where a party has other, adequate means to obtain the relief sought. 

See In re Prof’ls Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432, 437 (6th Cir. 2009). Because the district court’s 

orders may be reviewed following the entry of a final judgment, review in mandamus is not 

warranted.

The appeal is DISMISSED sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk

Case 2:14-cv-13047-DPH-MKM ECF No. 27, PageID.723 Filed 07/12/16 Page 3 of 3 Case: 16-1532 Document: 14-2 Filed: 07/12/2016 Page: 2 (3 of 3)