NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

In re: AUTOMOTIVE BODY PARTS ASSOCIATION,

Petitioner

______________________ 

2015-156

______________________ 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan 

in No. 2:15-cv-10137-LJM-MJH, Judge Laurie J. Michelson.

______________________ 

ON PETITION

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, DYK, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. 

DYK, Circuit Judge.

O R D E R

The Automotive Body Parts Association (“ABPA”) 

brought the underlying action against Ford Global Technologies, LLC in the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Texas. On Ford’s motion, the case was 

transferred to the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Michigan. After the Michigan court

denied retransfer, ABPA filed this petition challenging

the retransfer ruling, a challenge premised on the initial 

transfer being void under the Texas court’s local rules. 

2:15-cv-10137-LJM-MJH Doc # 30 Filed 11/17/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 490 Case: 15-156 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 11/17/2015
2 IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE BODY PARTS ASSN. 

Under applicable regional circuit law, we review a 

district court’s decision to deny a motion to retransfer for 

abuse of discretion. See Moses v. Bus. Card Express, Inc., 

929 F.2d 1131, 1137 (6th Cir. 1991). Moreover, ABPA is 

seeking mandamus relief, an extraordinary and drastic 

remedy that may only be granted upon a showing of a 

clear and indisputable right to relief. See Kerr v. U.S. 

Dist. Court for N. D. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 402–03 (1976). 

The Texas court’s local rule in question, CV-83(b), 

provides, in relevant part, that “[a]bsent an order of the 

court to the contrary, no sooner than the twenty-first day 

following an order of the court transferring the case to 

another district court . . . the clerk shall transmit the case 

file to the directed court . . . If a timely motion for reconsideration . . . has been filed, the clerk shall delay mailing 

or transferring the file until the court has ruled[.]” 

The Eastern District of Texas issued its order transferring the case on January 7, 2015. It concluded its

transfer order by stating: “The Clerk is directed to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Michigan.” No motion for reconsideration having been filed, the Clerk, on January 14, 2015,

mailed the Eastern District of Michigan a certified copy of 

the order and the original papers in the file. 

Believing that the Clerk’s failure to wait 21 days rendered the transfer void, ABPA sought reconsideration 

from the Texas court. The Texas court denied reconsideration, concluding the January 7, 2015 order directed the 

Clerk to act contrary to the usual rule and transfer immediately. ABPA then raised the same challenge before 

the Michigan court, which denied ABPA’s motions to

decline jurisdiction and retransfer, deferring to the Texas 

court’s findings on CV-83(b) as the law of the case. 

ABPA has no clear right to retransfer. A judge’s subsequent statements may help illuminate the actual intent

behind an issued order. See e.g., Sartin v. McNair Law 

2:15-cv-10137-LJM-MJH Doc # 30 Filed 11/17/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 491 Case: 15-156 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 11/17/2015
IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE BODY PARTS ASSN. 3

Firm PA, 756 F.3d 259, 266 (4th Cir. 2014); In re Jee, 799 

F.2d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 1986). The Texas court’s statements in its denial of reconsideration were clearly probative, and the Michigan court found that those statements 

were the best indication of the meaning behind the directive to the Clerk in the January 7, 2015 order. We 

decline to second guess the court’s determination on 

mandamus. 

ABPA argues that the Texas court’s interpretation

should be given no weight because, at the time, that court

had relinquished jurisdiction over the case. But ABPA 

cannot have it both ways. It cannot ask for relief from the 

Texas court in seeking to have the transfer declared

premature, and then credibly argue that the Texas court’s

reconsideration decision is a nullity after receiving an 

unfavorable ruling.

Moreover, ABPA did not lack a “meaningful alternative legal remed[y]” to obtain retransfer. Canadian 

Tarpoly Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 640 F.2d 1322, 

1325 (C.C.P.A. 1981). The Michigan court gave ABPA an 

adequate opportunity to seek retransfer by challenging

the merits of the transfer decision. ABPA simply elected 

to forgo that avenue of obtaining the relief it seeks. 

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The petition is denied. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court

s19

2:15-cv-10137-LJM-MJH Doc # 30 Filed 11/17/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 492 Case: 15-156 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 11/17/2015