### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o

. 1 0

- 5 0 9 4 1

S u m m a r y C a l e n d a r

I n r e : J O H N C O O P E R ; C A R R I E D

. B O E

,

P e t i t i o n e r s

.

P e t i t i o n f

o r a W r i t o f M a n d a m u s t o t h e

U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s

B e f o r e W I E N E R

, P R A D O

, a n d O W E N

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.

P E R C U R I A M : *

J o h n C o o p e r a n d C a r r i e B o e ( P e t i t i o n e r s ) s e e k a w r i t o f m a n d a m u s t o

v a c a t e a d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s o r d e r r e m a n d i n g a c a s e t o s t a t e c o u r t

. I n s u b s e q u e n t 1

b r i e f i n g t o t h e c o u r t

, h o w e v e r

, t h e P e t i t i o n e r s h a v e s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e i r p e t i t i o n

h a s b e e n m o o t e d b y t h e f i l i n g o f a n a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t i n s t a t e c o u r t

. T h e

P e t i t i o n e r s c l a i m t h a t t h e y w i l l f i l e a n e w n o t i c e o f r e m o v a l a s a r e s u l t o f t h i s

p l e a d i n g

. S p e c i f

i c a l l y

, t h e P e t i t i o n e r s “ r e s p e c t f u l l y s u g g e s t t h e i r P e t i t i o n f o r

W r i t o f M a n d a m u s i s m o o t

, b u t r e s e r v e t h e r i g h t t o r e

- f i l e s a m e s h o u l d t h e U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t



### F I L E D

Decem ber 9 , 20 10

Lyle W . Cayce

Clerk

Pur sua nt to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5

, the co urt has det erm ined that this op inion sho uld not *

be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4.

See In re Al ls tate Ins. Co.

, 8 F.3d 219, 221 (5t h Cir. 1993) (“ We may revie w a rem and 1

ord er on pet itio n for w r i t o f m a n d a m us

. . . pr ovide d that it wa s ente red on ground s not

autho rized by [28 U. S. C.] § 1447( c) .” ). But see Qu ac kenbus h v. Al ls tate Ins. Co.

, 517 U. S. 706,

711- 15 (199 6) (ho ldi ng that rem and ord ers are als o app ealabl e ord ers unde r 28 U. S. C. § 1291)

. Case: 10-50941 Document: 00511317363 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2010N o

. 1 0

- 5 0 9 4 1

D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e m a n d t h e

. . . c l a i m s p e n d i n g i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g l i t i g a t i o n i n t h e

f u t u r e p r i o r t o a p r o p e r a d j u d i c a t i o n

. ” W e r e a d t h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a s a r e q u e s t

b y t h e P e t i t i o n e r s t o w i t h d r a w t h e i n s t a n t p e t i t i o n

, a n d w e d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n

o n t h a t b a s i s

. W e d o n o t a d d r e s s a t t h i s t i m e w h e t h e r t h i s c o u r t o t h e r w i s e l a c k s

j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s r e m a n d o r d e r

. 2

D I S M I S S E D

.

28 U. S. C. § 1447( d) (“ An ord er rem andi ng a cas e to the Sta te cour t fr om wh ich it wa s 2

rem oved is not revie wa ble on app eal or otherw ise

. . . .” ); see als o Carl sba d Tec h., Inc. v. HIF

Bio, Inc.

, — U. S.

— , 129 S. Ct. 1862, 1865- 66 (200 9) (“ This Court has cons ist entl y held that

§ 1447( d) mus t be read in pa ri ma teri a wi th § 1447( c)

, thus lim itin g the rem ands barr ed fr om

app ellat e r eview by § 1 447( d) t o t hos e t hat are bas ed on a gr ound s pec ifi ed in § 1 447( c) .” ).

2 Case: 10-50941 Document: 00511317363 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2010