Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opi nio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forthin5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 2 0 0 9WL2 0 5 8 5 9( 5 thC ir

. J a n . 2 9 , 2 0 0 9) (u n pub li sh ed). 1 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20005

In re : B E A Z L E YIN S U R A N C E C O

. P et i t i on er

P et i t i on f

or W ri t of

M an da m u s t o t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ct C ou rt f

or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ct of T exas ( 08- C V

- 3340)

B e fo r e W IE N E R , S T E W A R T , a n d O W E N , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * T h e peti t i on f

or pan el reheari n g i s G R A N T E D

. W e w i t h draw our p rior unpub l i s he d o pi ni o n a nd s ubs t i t ut e t he f o l l o w i ng o pi ni o n: 1 Beaz l e y I ns ur anc e Com pa ny ( “ Beaz l e y” ) pe t i t i o ns f o r a w r i t o f

m and am us di r e c t i ng t he di s t r i c t co ur t t o re m and t he i ns t antca s e t o T e xa s st at e co ur t a nd t o vacate t h e di st ri ct court ’ s or ders requi ri n g B eazl ey t o m edi ate bef ore B a n k ru p tcy J u d ge Isgu r. D eterm i n i n g th a t m a n d a m u s reli ef i s i n a p p rop ri a te
o n th e d is c r e te fa c ts o f th is ca s e , w e d e n y re lie f. United States Court of A pp eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma y 4, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 20005

General E lectric is actuallyn amed as the additi onal insur ed partyrather tha n the 2 related e ntity, GE HF S. 2 I . F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS P l ai n t i f fs i n t he und e r l yi ng s ui t , D o c t o r s H o s pi t al1 99 7, L. P. a nd T i dwel l / Par kw ay Pr o pe r t y H o l di ngs , L. P. ( c o l l e c t i ve l y, t he “ H o s pi t al ” ) , have a t r oubl ed f

i nanci alh i st or y i n w hi c h ope r at i ng expe nse s now ex c ee d r eve nues b y appro xi m at el y $1. 5 m i l l i on perm ont h. To c ove r t he s hor t fal l , t he H os pi t al borrow e d s e ve r alm i l l i o n do l l ar s f r o m di s m i s s e d d e fe nda nt G E H FS H o l di ngs , In c . (“G E H F S ”). B y th e tim e it file d th e in s ta n t la w s u it, th e H o s p ita l w a s in d e fa u l t o n i t s l o a n s f

r o m GE HF S a n d o we d GE HF S mo r e t h a n $ 2 0 mi l l i o n . G E H FS r e f

us e d t o l e nd a ny ad di t i onalf unds t o t he H o s pi t ala nd h ad c al l e d t he
o u ts ta n d in g lo a n s . T h e H o s pi t alhol ds an i n suran ce pol i cy f rom peti t i on er B eazl ey t h at c overs p r o p e r t y d a ma g e a n d b u s i n e s s - i n t e r r up t i o n l o s s a t e a c h o f t h e Ho s p i t a l ’ s t wo fac i l i t i es , t he Ti dw el l and Parkw ay c am puses . G E H FS i s nam ed as an ad di t i on al i n sured on t h e pol i cy. I n Sep t em ber 200 8, H u rri can e I ke d am aged 2 bo t h c am pus e s , w i t h t he Par kw ay l o c at i o n s uf fe r i ng s e r i o us da m ag e . The H ospi t al el ect ed to cl ose t h e P arkw ay cam pu s r ather t h an t o repai r i t an d f i l ed a cl ai m w i t h B eazley for b o th p ro p e rty -d a m a g e a n d b u sin e ss -in te rr u p tion los ses. B eaz l ey has t o dat e di sb urs ed atl eas t $2. 5 m i l l i on and, at t he t i m e of s ui t , w as conti n u i n g t o i ssue m on t h l y bu si n ess- i n t errupti on pay m en ts a n d to adj u st
c l ai m s a s t he H o s pi t als ubm i t t e d d o c um e nt at i o n. G E H F S asser t ed that i t w as enti t l ed to recei ve w h a te ver i n suran ce pro c ee ds B eaz l ey pai d out so that the f und s, at G E H FS ’ s di sc r et i on, w oul d pay d ow n the H osp i tal’ s ou tstan d i n g d eb t.N o. 09- 20005

Th e pr evio u s d ay , Nov emb er4 , th e Ho sp it al file d a ni de ntical suiti nst a tec ourt
. GE 3 HFS r emov ed th at suit to the District Court fo r th e South ern Districtof Te xa s onNovember 5. Th e Hospital vo luntarilydismissed that suit onlyto re-fil e th e i dentical insta nt case in st ate co urtlaterthat sa meday.

Th e parties do n ot di spute the d is t rict court’s dive rsityj uri sdictio n. Th e Hospital 4 co n si st s o f twoT ex a s lim it edp a rt n er ship s; th eir principal pl a ce s o f b u si n es s arei nT ex a s. GE HF S isaDe lawarec orpo rati on ; it s p ri n cipal pl a ceo f b u si n es s is in M a rylan d. B ea z le yi s a C onn ec ticut co rp or a ti on ; it s p ri n cipal pl a ceo f b u si n es s i s inC onn ec ticut. 3 O n N ov em b er 5 , 20 0 8 , the H osp i tal fi l ed i ts ori gin a l pe ti ti on i n T ex a s state
c o ur t na m i ng bo t h GE H FS and B e az l e y as de fe nda nt s . As t o G E H FS, t he 3 H osp i tal asse rted bre a ch of fi d u ci a ry d u ty, torti ou s i n terferen ce w i th con tract, br e ac h o f

c o nt r ac t , a nd e c o no m i c di s t r e s s c l ai m s f o r “ G E [ H FS] ’ s e gr e gi o us
m i s c o nduc t a nd b l at anta t t e m pt s t o b ank r upt ” t he H o s pi t al

. As t o B e az l e y, t he H o sp it al asser t ed on l y a breach of contr act cl ai m al l egi n g t h at B eazl ey “ fai l ed t o t i m e l y m ak e a l l pa ym e nt s r e qui r e d un de r t he Po l i c y. ” La t e r t hatda y, t he
s t at e j udg e g r ant e d a n exp a rte t em porary rest rai n i n g order di rect i n g B eazl ey t o a dv anc e $ 1. 5 m i l l i o n t o t he H o s pi t al ; Bea z l e y c o m pl i e d. O n N ovem ber 1 0, G E H F S rem oved the i n st an t case to t h e D i st ri ct C ou rt f o r t he So ut he r n Di s t r i c t of Te x a s on t he ba s i s of di v e r s i t y j ur i s d i c t i o n. GE H FS 4
n ei t h er s ou gh t nor obtai n ed consen t t o rem oval f rom i t s c o- defenda n t B eazl ey b eca u se, a ccord i n g to G E H F S , B ea zley w a s a m ere n om i n a l pa rty to th e su i t. T h e H osp i tal p roce ed ed to f i l e a n ap p l i ca ti on f

or p reli m i n a ry i nj u n cti on to ( 1) preven t G E H F S f rom c o ll e ct i n g i n suran ce proc eeds as pay m en t f or ou t st an di n g deb t an d ( 2) requi re B eazl ey t o f ol l ow t h e t erm s of

t h e i n suran ce pol i cy an d to “ [ i ] m m edi atel y f u n d allbu si n e ss i n t errupti on proceeds ow ed d ir e c tly a n d s o le ly to [th e H o s p ita l].” O n N o v e m b e r 1 7 , t h e d i s t r ic t c o u r t h e ld
a h e a r in g a t w h ic h t h e H o s p ita l a s s e r te d t h a t w ith o u t inju n c tiv e re lie f, it w o u ld
n o lo n g e r b e a b le to o p e r a te
. A t th e h e a r in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in d ic a te d th a t in ad di t i on t o t h e d i spu t ed f i n an ci al is sues, itrec ogn i zed the com m u n i t y’ s i n t erestN o. 09- 20005

4 i n the H osp i tal’ s con ti n u ed o p era ti on . T h e cou rt ord ere d the pa rti es to m ed i a te bef or e Bank r upt c y Judge I sg ur t he f ol l ow i ng day. A l l par t i es at t ended t hat m edi at i on and, on t he af t er noon of

N ove m ber18, Ju dg e I sgu r r eported t o t h e di st ri ct court t h at t h e H ospi t al an d G E H F S w ere progressi n g t ow ard a resol u t i on tha t w ou l d requ i re G E H F S to rel ease som e of t he B eaz l ey i nsur ance pro c ee ds t hat had bee n di sb urs ed t o G E H F S

. Judge I s gura l s o a dv i s e d t he c o ur t t hat t he H o s pi t al ne e de d a n a ddi t i o nal$ 80 0, 00 0 no l a ter th a n the n ex t da y. T h e d i stri ct cou rt i n stru cted B ea zley a n d G E H F S to be pr e pa r e d t o pa y t hata m o unt
. The m e di at i o n t he n c o nt i nue d. Th e ne xt m or ni ng, t he di st r i c t c our t hel d a hear i ng duri ng w hi c h, Judge Isgu r n oti fi ed the cou rt, the H osp i tal an d G E H F S rea ch ed a se ttl e m en t. A ccord i n g to th e term s of t h e se ttl em en t, ( 1 ) G E H F S w a s d i sm i sse d w i th pr ej u d i c e f

r o m t h e s u i t ; ( 2 ) GE HFS a g r e e d t o r e l e a s e $ 2
. 2 mi l l i o n t o t he H osp i tal; an d (3) th e H osp i tal a ssign ed certa i n ri gh ts t o G E H F S to pro secu te i ts cl a i m s ag a i n st B ea zley. T h e H osp i tal a n d B ea zley fa i l ed to rea ch a se ttl em en t. A t t h e hea ri n g, Ju dg e Is gu r i n f orm ed t h e di st ri ct court t h at, al t h ou gh t h e ot h er p a r tie s h a d m e d ia te d in g o o d fa ith , B e a z le y “d id n o t n e g o tia te in g o o d fa ith .” O n t he s am e da y, Bea z l e y f i l e d a m o t i o n t o r e m and t o s t at e c o ur t o n t he gr o und t hati t w as no t a m e r e nom i nalpar t y, b ut i ns t e ad ha d a r e als t ak e i n t he l i t i gati on becau se t h e am ou n t of i n suran ce proc eeds pa yab l e un d e r the pol i cy
w a s d is p u te d

. O n N o ve m be r 2 4, t he H o s pi t ala nd GE H FS — now pa r t i c i pa t i ng as t he H os pi t al ’ s c o- pl ai nt i f f r at her t han as a def endant ( t he “ Pl ai nti ffs” ) — f i l ed an
a m e n ded com pl ai n t i n t h e di st ri ct court asser t i n g on l y t h e breach of contr act
c l ai m a ga i ns t Bea z l e y, t he s o l e r e m ai ni ng de fe nda nt
. The am e nde d c o m pl ai ntN o. 09- 20005

Bea zl eyfil ed a motion for more definite statement, which the distric t co urt deni ed. 5 Bea zl eyrequeste d th at the distric t co urt certify it s i nt er lo cuto ry order for appeal 6 pursuant to 2 8 U .S.C. § 1 292 (b). Th e co urt decli ned to doso.

Simultan eou sly with the fili ngof its pe titio n for writ of manda mus, B eaz leyfil ed a 7 motionfor stayinthis co urt seekin g temporary reli ef fro m mediating bef or e Judge Isgur pendi ngour de cisio n in the manda mus action . B ecau se we iss ue our rulin g on Bea zl ey’s petiti on today , we will de nyth e motionto stayas moot.

2 8U .S .C

. § 1 6 5 1 (a); see C hen ey v. U.S. Dist. Cou rt , 5 4 2 U .S

. 3 6 7 , 3 8 0( 2 0 0 4). 8 Ch eney , 5 4 2 U .S

. a t 3 8 0(inte rn al qu ot a ti onmark s an d citati ono mitt ed). 9 5 al l eges t h at B eazl ey breach ed the t erm s of t h e i n suran ce pol i cy in a v a ri et y of
w ays that c au sed sub st an t i al l osses . 5 O n D e c e m b e r 1 , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t o r d e r e d th e p a r tie s to m e d ia te a g a in bef ore Jud ge Is gu r duri n g t h e ensu i n g 60 t o 90 da ys. A ccor di n gl y, t h e di st ri ct
co u rt stayed the case and ext en ded al l dead l i n es f or an ad di t i on al 90 da ys. B e a z le y s o u g h t to v a c a t e th e D e c e m b e r 1 o r d e r o n th e g r o u n d th a t J u d g e I s g u r ’s i m pa r t i al i t y w as q ue s t i o nab l e ; t he di s t r i c t c o ur t de ni e d t hatm o t i o n. O n D ecem ber 1 8, the di st ri ct cou rt d en i ed B eazl ey’ s m ot i on t o rem an d on th e b a s is th a t B e a z le y ’ s co n s e n t w a s n o t r e q u ir e d w h e n G E H F S o r ig i n a lly
rem ov ed the cas e to fede ra l cou rt. 6 O n Jan u ary 9, 200 9, B eazl ey f i l ed the i n st an t peti t i on f or w ri t of
m an da m u s. 7 I I . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW T h e A l l W ri ts A ct a u th orizes us to “i ssu e al l w ri ts n ece ssa ry or a p p rop ri a te i n ai d of [ ou r] respect i ve j u ri sdi ct i on [ ] an d agreeabl e t o t h e usag es and pri n ci pl es o f la w .” The w r i t o f m and am us i s , ho w e ve r , a “ dr as t i c a nd e xt r ao rdi n ary 8
r e m e d y re s e r v e d fo r re a lly e x tr a o r d in a r y ca u s e s .” 9

B e c a u s e t h e w r i t i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e me d y , t h e S u p r e me C ou rt ha s es t abli shed t h ree requ i rem en t s t h at m u st be m et bef ore a w ri t m a y issu e: (1) “the pa rty se ek i n g issu a n ce of the w ri t [ m u st] h ave n o ot h er adequ ate m ean s t o att ai n t h e rel i ef he d esi res
— aN o. 09- 20005

In re Volkswagen of Am., I nc. , 545 F.3d 30 4, 311 (5th Cir. 2 008) (enbanc) (quo ting 10 Ch eney , 5 4 2 U .S

. a t 3 8 0

– 8 1 ).

I d

. at 318–19
. 11 Id

. at30 7–0 8. 12 See Aaaron v. Na t’l Union F ire Ins. Co. of Pittsbur gh , 87 6 F .2d 1 157 , 11 60 (5thC ir. 13 198 9) (“A distric t co urt’s deni al of amoti on to reman d is n ot afin al order, and it ther eforeis n otr evie wab leo n[inte rl oc u to ry] a pp eal. ”)

.

In re Vo lkswage n , 54 5 F .3d at 3 19. I n the insta nt case, the distric t co urt declin ed 14 to grant ce rtificati on for interlocutoryapp ealp ur s ua ntto 28U.S.C . § 129 2(b). I n Inre Volkswagen , th e de nial o f transfer was anord er ine l igib le for interlocutoryreview u nder se ctio n12 9 2 (b ). Id

. Any distinction betwee n the two situation s is immaterial to our inquiry as th e e ffect on the petiti one r i n both cases was the same — unavailabilityof an inte rlocutory appeal. 6 cond i t i on desi gn ed to en su re th at t h e w ri t w i l l not be used as a sub st i t u t e f

or t h e regul ar app eal s proces s” ; ( 2) “ t h e p et i t i on er m u st s a tis fy th e b u r d e n o f s h o w in g t h a t [h is ] r ig h t to is s u a n c e o f th e w r it i s c l ear an d i n di spu t able” ; a n d ( 3) “even if the f i rsttw o prerequis i t es hav e b e e n m e t , t he i s s ui ng c o ur t , in t he e xe r c i s e o f i t s di s c r e t i o n, m us t b e s at i s f

i e d t hatt he w r i t i s a ppr o pr i at e und e r t he ci rcum sta n ces. . . . Th ese hu rdl es, how ever dem an di n g, are not in s u p e r a b le .” 10 W e a d d re ss in tu rn ea ch of B e a z ley ’ s p u ta tiv e b a se s fo r m a n d a m u s r e li e f.

I I I . Di s t r i c t Cour t ’ s D e ni al of Rem and A . N o O t her A dequat e M eans t o Att ai n R el i ef Beaz l e y c o nt e nds t hato ur r e c e nt en b anc de c i s i o n i n In re V ol ksw ag en l en d s su ff

i ci en t su p p ort to con cl u d e th a t i t ha s n o oth er a d eq u a te m ea n s to att ai n rel i ef

. W e agree. 11 I n In re V

ol ksw ag en , fo ll o w in g th e d is t r ic t c o u r t ’s d e n ia l o f a d e fe n d a n t ’s 28 U

. S

. C

. § 1404 ( a) m ot i on t o t ran sfer venu e, t h e peti t i on er s ou gh t a w rit of
m and am us di r e c t i ng t he di s t r i c t c o ur t t o t r ans fe r t he ca s e . A s i n t he i ns t ant 12 case, i n t erl ocutor y revi ew of t h e di st ri ct court ’ s or der w as un ava i l able. W e 13 14
s ai d:N o. 09- 20005

Id

. at 318–19(quot ing Inre Nat’ l Presto I

ndus., I nc. , 34 7 F .3d 6 62, 663(7th Cir. 15 2 0 0 3 )) ( em ph a si s a dd ed).

See, e.g. , Gillis v. Louisian a , 2 9 4F .3 d 7 5 5 , 7 5 8( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). 16 See, e.g. , Bro ussard

v. StateFarm Fire & Cas. C o. , 5 2 3 F .3 d 6 1 8 , 6 3 1 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 8). 17 545F .3d at 3 18– 19. Bu t s ee I n re Briscoe , 44 8 F .3d 2 01, 215(3d Cir. 2 006) 18 (conc ludingth at “anapp ealaft er finalj udg ment is n ot an illusoryor ine ffectual me ans thro u ghwhichp etitio n er s c a np u rs u e th eir a rgu me ntsf orar em a n d tost a tec ourt”)

. We have pr eviou sly note d th e probl ematic n ature o f appe llate r eview o f denial s of 19 re ma n d. See McAtee r v. Silverleaf Resor ts, I nc. , 514 F.3 d 41 1, 4 16 (5thC ir. 2 008) (“[I]f subje ct matter jurisdictionis

. . . estab lish ed a nd a c as e r em ai ns i n the federal c ourtsy stem fora significa nt len gthof time or r each es averdic t onth e merits, co nsi d er at io ns of finalityan d econ omy may result in affirmi ng a ju dgment [on appeal] de spite the imprope r re moval.” (c itin g C at er pi llar I n c. v . L ewis , 5 1 9U .S

. 6 1 , 7 5 ( 1 9 9 6))

. 7 A s J u d ge Posnerhas not ed, a pe t i t i oner“ w oul d not have an adequat e r em edy f

or an i m pro per fai l ure t o t r ansf er t he c as e b y w ay of an app eal f

rom an ad verse f

i n al j u dg m en t becau se [ t h e peti t i on er] w o u ld n o t b e a b le to s h o w th a t i t w o u l d h a v e w o n th e ca s e h a d it b e e n t r i e d i n a c o n v e n i e n t [ v e n u e ]

. ”

. . . A n d t h e h a r m — i nco nveni enc e t o w i t nes se s, par t i es and ot her — w i l l al r eady have be e n do ne b y t he t i m e the case i s t r i e d a nd a ppe al e d, a nd t he p re ju d ice su ffere d ca n n o t b e p u t b a ck in th e b o ttle

. T h u s , th e w r it is n o t h e r e u s e d a s a s u b s tit u te fo r a n a p p e a l, a s a n a p p e a l w ill provi de no r e m e dy f o r a pa t e nt l y e r r o ne o us fai l ur e t o t r ans fer ven u e. 15 W e reco gn i ze th a t, tec h n i ca l l y, th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s d en i a l of B ea zley’ s m oti on to
r em and w i l l be revi ew abl e on appealpurs uant t o 2 8 U

. S. C

. § 1291
. Ye t , v e nue 16 t r ans fe r or de r s l i ke t he o ne i n I n r e Vol ks w ag e n a r e a ls o re v ie w a b le o n a p p e a l. 17 Ou r d e c i s i o n i n In re V ol ksw ag en t hus f

o r e c l o s e s t hi s fac t f r o m b e i ng de t e r m i nat i ve . For t he pur po s e o f o ur i nqui r y t o da y, t he Pl ai nt i f fs s e t f o r t h no 18
r at i onal e f

or di st i ngui shi ng a de ni alof a m ot i on t o t r an sfer v en u e f r om deni al of a m ot i on t o rem an d to st ate c ou rt
. B eazl ey h as no ad equ ate m e a n s of rel i ef ot h er t h an t h e ext raordi n ary w ri t i t now seeks. 19 B . C le a r a n d In d is p u ta b le R ig h t to th e Is s u a n c e o f th e W r itN o. 09- 20005

Inre Volkswagen , 545 F.3d304, 311 (quo ting Inre U.S. Dep’t of Homelan d Sec. , 45 9 20 F .3 d 5 6 5 , 5 7 1 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 6) (De n nis , J ., c oncurrin g))

.

Se e id

. a t 3 0 9

– 1 0( di sc u ssi n gc le a r ab u seo f di sc re ti on); see also Brous sa rd v. State 21 F a r m F i re & Cas. Co. , 5 23 F.3 d 61 8, 6 31 (5thC ir. 2 008) (reviewin g, on appeal, fo r abuseof di sc re ti onad ec is io no namo ti ont o tr a n sf ervenu e)

. See Sherro d v. Am. Airlin es, I nc. , 1 3 2 F .3 d 1 1 1 2 , 1 1 1 7( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 8). 22 Even tho ugh we distinguishbetween thepossib le standards of review, we “must b e 23 care ful

. . . [not] to b e m is le db y la be ls such as ‘ abu se of discreti on’ and ‘want of po wer’ i nto inte rl oc u to ryr evie w of n on a pp ealab le or de rs on th e me regro u n d th a t th eymayb e erro n eo u s.” Inre Volkswagen , 54 5 F .3d at 3 09 (quo tin g Will v. Un ited

States , 3 8 9U .S

. 9 0 , 9 8n .6( 1 9 6 7)) (qu ot a ti onmark s o mitt ed).

Inre Hot-Hed

I nc. , 4 7 7 F .3 d 3 2 0 , 3 2 3 (5 th C ir

. 2 0 0 7) (p erc u ri a m); I n re Am. Air lines, 24 In c. , 9 7 2 F .2 d 60 5 , 60 9( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 2 ); Inre Dresser In dus ., I nc. , 97 2 F .2d 5 40, 543(5th Cir. 1 9 9 2 ). 8 1. L ega l Stan da rd i . M an da m u s St an da rd A pe t i t i o ne r m ay s ho w “ t hat i t s r i ght t o i s s uanc e o f t he w r i t i s ‘ c l e ara nd i ndi sput abl e’by dem ons t r at i ng t hat t her e has be en a ‘ usur pat i on o f j udi c i al pow er’ o r a ‘ c l e ara bus e o f di s c r e t i o n. ’ ” I n In re V ol ksw ag en , w e f

o c used on 20

“ cl ear a bu se of

di scr et i on ” becau se w e w ere r evi ew i n g a dis t ri ct court ’ s den i al of
a m ot i on t o t ran sfer venu e t h at, on a pp eal , w ou l d h ave been subj ect t o revi ew f or
m ere , n ot c l e ar , abu se of di scr et i on . In t h e i n st an t case, how ever, w e consi der 21
a l e ga l q ue s t i o n — t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s de ni alo f Bea z l e y’ s m o t i o n t o r e m and — t h a t , o n a p p e a l , we wo u l d r e v i e w de no vo . G i ven t h i s di st i n ct i on , w e m ay n ot 22 her e r evi ew f

or c l earabuse of di sc r et i on; i t i s i l l ogi c alt o r evi ew under t hat st an da rd a rul i n g on a l egal i ssue f or w h i ch the di st ri ct court m ay n ot exerci se di scr et i on in the f

i rstp l ace. E ven in a m an da m u s p roceedi n g, w e m u st revi ew

23 d e novo t he di st r i c t c our t ’ s i nt er pre t at i ons of l aw . Yet , m andam us r em ai ns an 24 ext raordina ry r e m e d y , a n d “[m ]e r e ly s h o w in g th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d isN o. 09- 20005

I nre Av an t el, S.A

. , 3 4 3 F .3 d 3 1 1 , 3 1 7 (5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 3 ); see a lso Banke rs L ife &C as. 25 Co. v. Holland , 346 U.S. 3 79, 383(19 53) (“Th e su pplementaryreview po wer co nferr ed o n the co u rt s b yC on gre ss inth e AllWritsActi s m ea nt to b e u se d only in th e exce ptio n al ca se. . . . ”)

.

Inre Avant el , 343 F.3 d at 317 (statin g that the petiti one r “must show not only that 26 th e di strictc ourte rr ed , b u t th a t itc le a rlya n d indi sp u tab lye rr ed”) ; I nre Occ iden t al

P et ro l. Cor p. , 2 1 7F .3 d 2 9 3 , 2 9 5 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 0) (s a me). If the court l acks subje ct-matte rj urisdictio n at anyti me b eforefin al ju dgment, it 27 must re mand the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1 447 (c). Inth e i nstant ca se, th e di strict court i ndisputab ly has div ersityj uri sdictio n irrespe ctive of a nyerror in remov al proced ure . SeeJ oh n so nv . Helmerich & Payn e, I

nc. , 892 F.2 d 422 , 423 (5th Cir. 199 0) (“Th e failure of allth e de fenda nts toj oini nth e re mov al pe titi oni s notaj u ri sdic ti on al de fe ct .”).

Farias v. Bexar Cou nt

y Bd. of T

rustees fo r Men tal HealthMen tal Ret ardat ion Servs

. , 28 9 2 5 F .2 d 8 6 6 , 8 7 1 ( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 1 ) (i nte rn al qu ot a ti onmark s an d citati on s o mitt ed). 9 in s u ffic i en t to ob tain

. . . reli ef. ” A ccord i n gly, w e sha l l gr a n t reli ef on l y if 25 B e a z le y d e m o n s tr a te s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t “c le a r ly a n d in d is p u ta b ly e r r e d .” 26

i i . L ega l Stan da rd: R em an d to Stat e C ou rt P u rsuan t t o 28 U

. S

. C

. § 1447 ( c) , a party m ay, w i t h i n t h i rt y da ys of
r e m o v a l o f a ca s e fr o m s ta te c o u r t, file a m o tio n to r e m a n d th e ca s e o n th e b a s is
o f a ny de fe c t o t he r t han l ac k of s ubj e c t

- m at t e r j ur i s di c t i o n. T h e pu rport ed 27 defec t i n t h e i n st an t case i s t h at B eazl ey’ s consen t w as a n ecess ary cond i t i on of
rem oval, bu t w as n ot soug h t w h en i t s t h en co- defenda n t G E H F S f i l ed the n ot i ce o f r e m o va l

. W e ha ve pr e vi o us l y e xp l ai ne d:

A ll d e fe n d a n ts w h o a r e p r o p e r ly jo in e d a n d s e r v e d m u s t jo in i n t h e rem oval peti t i on , a n d

. . . fai l u re to do so renders t h e peti t i on defec t i ve. Th ere i s an excep t i on t o t h i s general rul e, how ever. “ N o m i nal” o r “ f

o r m al ” par t i e s ne e d no t j o i n i n t he r e m o va l pe t i t i o n. To e s t ab l i s h t hatno n- r e m o vi ng pa r t i e s a r e no m i nalpa r t i e s , t he r e m o vi ng pa r t y m us t s ho w . . . t hatt he r e i s no po s s i bi l i t y t hatt he pl ai nt i f f w o ul d b e a bl e t o e s t ab l i s h a c aus e o f act i o n a ga i ns t t he n on -rem ov i n g d efen d a n ts i n state cou rt. 28 I n de t e r m i ni ng w he t he r a pa r t y i s no m i nal , a c o ur t asks “ w he t he r , i n t he
a b sen ce of the [ p a r ty], the C ou rt can en ter a fi n a l j u d gm en t con sist en t w i th equ i t y an d good consci en ce, w h i ch w ou l d n ot be i n an y w ay u n fa ir orN o. 09- 20005

Lo u is ia n a v. U

n io nOi l C

o. of C al if

. , 458 F.3 d 364 , 366–67 (5th Cir. 2 006) (qu otin g 29 Acost a v. Mas te r Main t. & Const r. I nc. , 4 5 2 F .3 d 3 7 3 , 3 7 9 (5 th C ir

. 2 0 0 6)) (qu ot a ti on mark s om itte d) ; see Farias , 925 F.2 d at87 1 (quo ting Tri-Cit ies Ne wspapers, I nc. v. Tri-CitiesP

rint ing Press me n & As si stan ts’ Local 3 4 9 , I n t ’l Pri n t in

g Press me n & As si stan ts’ Un io n of N. A m. , 42 7 F .2 d 3 2 5 , 3 2 7( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 7 0))

.

UnionOil C

o. , 458 F.3dat 367 (cit ing Tri-Cit ies , 4 2 7F

. 2 dat3 2 7); Tr i

- Ci ti es , 42 7 30 F.2 d at32 7 (“Thetest of wheth er or not a n amed defen dantis a nominal partyis if his ro le in th e law s u iti s th a t of

ad ep os it a ryo r st a ke h ol de r . . . .”(citati ono mitt ed))

. S.E.C

. v. C

h er if , 9 3 3F .2 d 4 0 3 , 4 1 4( 7 thC ir

. 1 9 9 1 ); see B L AC KS LA W D I CTI O NARY 14 40 31 (8t h ed. 2004) (A “s tak ehold er” is “[ a] di sin ter es tedt hirdp art y w ho hold s mo ney o r pro per ty, th e ri gh t towhichi s dis pute d b etwe entwoo r mo reo th erp a rtie s.”).

See UnionOil C

o. , 45 8 F .3d at 3 67 (“We take practical consi deration s into accou nt 32 inmaki n gth isd et er mi n a ti on .”).

F arias , 92 5 F .2d at 8 71. 33 Tri-Cities , 42 7 F .2d at 3 27. 34 See, e.g. , I

n re Shell Oil Co

. , 9 3 2 F .2 d 1 5 1 8 , 1 5 2 2

–2 3( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 1 ). 35 10 i n equ i t able. ” A dd i t i on al l y, a p art y i s n om i n al if it s rol e i s r est ri ct ed to t h at of 29 a “deposi t ary or s t ak eh ol der, ” e. g. , one “w h o ha s posses si on of t h e f u n ds w h i ch 30 are t h e subj ect of

l i t i gati on [ an d]

. . . m u st oft en b e j oi n ed p u rel y as a m ean s of facil i tati n g co l l ection

. ” T h e test is n ot d ep en d a n t on h ow the plain ti ff l a b els i ts 31
co m p la int, bu t rat h er on t h e pract i cal ef fect of a j u dg m en t on a given defenda n t
. E qu i t y i s t h e m ajor c o n cern i n t h i s i n qu i ry. “ T h e qu est i on of

32 33
w h et h e r a n a m e d d efen da n t i s a nom i n al party depen ds on t h e fact s i n each
case. ” A n d, w e l oo k to w h et h er a part y w as nom i n al at t h e t i m e of r e m o v al 34 rat h er t h an consi deri n g an y sub sequ en t even t s. 35 2 . B e a zle y F a il s to E sta b li sh C lea r an d In d isp u ta b le R ig h t to R el i ef In t h e i n st an t case, t h e di st ri ct cou rt h el d t h at G E H F S p roperl y rem oved t h e case becau se B eazl ey w as a n o m in a l part y — a m ere deposi t ary or st akehol der — at t h e ti m e of r em oval

. The c our t det er m i ned t hat onl y aft erN o. 09- 20005

Cou nselfor Bea zl eyasse r t s t ha tthe “goin g on right now” part of his statement 36
“ B e a z l e yi s r e al lyn o tap a rto f th edi s p u t eth a t ’s going onrightn ow ,” demon strates that h e was onlyrefe rrin g to w hi ch partysho uld receiveth e i nsurance procee ds. Mor e difficult to explain away , ho wever , is the state ment, “Be az leyis not a r ealparty in inte rest; a nd ther efore ,

. . . sh ouldn oth av e b ee nb ro u gh t intoth e matt er .” 11 r e m o va l di d B e az l e y be c o m e a re alpar t y i n i nt e r e s t
. To s upp o r t i t s c o nc l us i o n, t he di st r i c t c o ur t r e l i e d o n e x c ha ng e s t ha t o c c ur r e d d ur i ngt he Nov e m b e r 1 7, 2008 pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on hear i ng. Spec i f i c al l y, t he cou rt not ed t hat

“ Beaz l e y’ s c o uns e l s t at e d t hat‘ Beaz l e y i s re al l y no t a pa r t o f t hi s di s put e ’ g o i ng on ri ght now bet w ee n t he par t i es and t hat he ‘ bel i eve [ s] t hat B eaz l ey i s n ot a
r e alpar t y i n i nt e r e s t ; and t he r e f o r e , . . . sho ul d nothave be e n b r o ugh t i nt o t he
m a tt e r .’ ” T h e co u r t a ls o re lie d o n co u n s e l’ s s ta te m e n t: Cl e ar l y, t he di s put e b et w e e n t he ho s pi t ala nd GE [ H FS] o ve r t he $2. 1 m i l l i on i n rec ei vab l e pay m en t s t h at w ere m ad e an d w h atever f i nanci ng agr ee m ent G E [ H FS ] h as w i t h t he h os pi t alon t he pl edge of rec ei vab l es, . . . ha s nothi n g to do w i t h us. W e ha ve n o contr ol ove r i t
. I n fac t , I don’ t have any know l edge of i t ex c ept w hat w e’ ve hear d her e t oday. B eazl ey contend s t h at t h e di st ri ct court m i sconst rued t h ese s t atem en t s ort ook th em ou t of

con tex t. B ea zley n ow u rg es th e i n terp reta ti on th a t t h ese statem en ts di d n ot ref

er t o i t s i n t eresti n t h e overal l l aw sui t , bu t rat h er t o B eazl ey’ s i n t erest i n t h e port i on of

t h e di spu t e tha t w as t h e f ocus of t h e prel i m i n ary i nj u n ct i on hear i ng — w het her t he am ou n t of i nsur ance pr oc ee ds due at t hat t i m e w as p a y a b le s o le ly to th e H o s p ita l o r w h e th e r G E H F S w a s to b e a p a y e e . O n th is i ss ue, B eaz l ey c onc ede s i t w as a m er e bys t ander

. B ut , B eaz l ey m ai nt ai ns t hat al t ho ugh i t ha s no i nt e r e s t i n w h i ch pa rty rec ei ves t he pr oc ee ds, i t has al w ays di spu t ed the a m o u n t of proc ee ds t hat w oul d be pai d. P er haps m or e dam agi ng, 36 and l es s sus c ept i bl e t o m i s- i nt er pre t at i on, t han any of t he s t at em ent s c i t ed by t h e di st ri ct court , i s a st atem en t f rom a D ecem b e r 3, 200 8 h eari n g. Th ere, coun self

or B ea z ley represen t ed to t h e court t h at “ W e w en t t o t h e m edi ati onN o. 09- 20005

Inth at hearin g, coun sel for Bea zl eydid, however, urgeth at it had ov erpai d onth e 37 Ho sp it al’ s c laim

. 12 b e c a u s e o f

t h e fa c t t h a t w e fe l t o b l i g a t e d t o do s o b y Yo u r H o n o r ’ s d i r e c t i o n . At th e ti m e of the ora l pr ese n tati on be fo r e t h e C ou rt,
. . . B ea zley w a s alm ost a t hi r d par t y on m y t er m — but i t w as sugge st ed and or der ed by t h e C ou rt t h at
w e a t t end a m edi at i on. ” The Pl ai nt i f fs sugge stt hat ei t her t hes e po st

- r em oval 37 st at em ent s sho ul d be c ons t r ued as a w ai ver of t he ar gum ent t hat B eaz l ey w as a r e a l p a r t y , o r j u d i c i a l e s t o p p e l s h o u l d n o w b a r t h e c l a i m b e c a u s e GE HFS reli ed on pr e -rem ov a l rep rese n tati on s. In re sp on se to th e w a i ve r arg u m en t, B e a z le y d ir e c ts u s t o its s ta te m e n t a t t h e p r e lim in a r y inju n c tio n h e a r in g th a t it
m a y la te r m o v e to re m a n d th e ca s e . T h e d istri ct court al so c i t ed w h at i t consi dered B eazl ey’ s r epresentati on th a t it h a d b e e n p a y in g th e H o s p ita l’ s b u s in e s s -in te r r u p tio n e x p e n s e s a n d w o u ld
c o n tin u e to d o s o . Y e t, B e a z le y , re ly in g o n , in tera lia , a s t at e m e nt m ad e o n t he da y o f r e m o va l t hati t w as s t i l l a dj us t i ng t he i ns ur anc e c l ai m , c o nt e nds t hatt he
a m o u n t o f its p a y m e n ts w a s n e v e r u n d is p u te d

. B eazl ey al so di rect s u s t o t h e H ospi t al ’ s ori gi n al st ate court peti t i on w h i ch set s f ort h an indep en den t b reach of con t ract cl ai m against B eazl ey an d all eges t hati t “ has fai l e d t o t i m e l y m ak e a l l pa ym e nt s r e qui r e d un de r t he Po l i c y. ” The
or i gi nal pet i t i on as se r t s t hat B eaz l ey’ s br eac h c ause d t he H os pi t al“ subs t ant i al
ac t ua l , c o ns e q ue nt i a l , a nd s p e c i a l l o s s e s . ” To t hi s , t he Pl a i nt i f fs r e spo nd by
no t i ng t hatt h e ori gi nalpe t i t i o n di d no t a l l e ge t hatt he a m o unt due und e r t he pol i cy w as at i ssue; i n st ead t h e P l ai n t i f fs c on t en d t h at t h e ori gi n al peti t i on
s hould b e r e ad a s s e e ki ng r e l i e f o nl y i n t he f

o r m o f r e l e as e o f

a n u n d i spu t ed
a m o u n t o f p r o c e e d s . The Pl ai nt i f

fs a s s e r t , a nd t he di s t r i c t c o ur t a ppa r e nt l y ad o pt e d, t he argu m en t t h at at t h e t i m e of rem oval, B eazl ey ap pea red w i l l i n g to i ssue a pa ym e nt tha t the Pl ai nt i f fs c o ns i de r e d t o b e a ppr o pr i at e und e r t he po l i c y andN o. 09- 20005

Inth e Plai ntiffs’ vi ew, B eaz leydid no t become a r ealparty until Nov ember17 , when 38 Beazley fi rs t ass ert ed in cou rt th at it hadoverpa id on thepolic y.

See, e.g. , Ro che v. Evaporat ed Milk Ass’ n , 31 9 U .S. 21 , 26 (194 3) (“ [Manda mus] may 39 n ota pp ro priate lyb e u se d me re lya s asub stitu tef orth e a pp eal pr oc edu rep re sc rib edb y . . . st a tute .”). Th e i nstant ca se i s di s t in c tf r om some othe r man damus cases that, like this ca se, involve questi ons of l aw revi ewed de n ov o . I n thoseca ses, th e di strict court’s error is unm ist ak ably clea r an di n d is pu t ab le

. For ex ample, a distric t court cl early and indi sputab ly errswh enit u se s th e inco rr ec t le g al te st
. SeeI nre Av an t el, S.A

. , 343 F.3d 31 1, 318(5th Cir. 200 3) (a ssessing“whe therthe district court should haveapplied thecontrol -gro up test o r th e subj ec t- matt ert es t”o f a tt orn ey -c li ent privil ege) ; see also I n re Dress er I

ndus., I nc. , 97 2 F .2d 540 , 54 3 (5 th Cir. 1 992 ) (district co urt “erre d inh oldi ngth at its l ocalrules .

. . are the ‘sole ’ authority gove rni nga motionto disqu alify”). I n the insta nt case, however, the distric t co urt’s applicati on of the leg al stan dard for motion s to reman d exhib its n o su ch clea r an di n d is pu t ab le erro r. 13 t hato nl y af

t e r r e m o va l di d Beazl ey de m o ns t r at e a n unwi l l i ngn e s s t o m ak e b us i ne s s - i nt er r upt i on paym ent s and co nt end t hat i t had ov er pai d on t he pol i c y. 38 Acc o r di ng t o t he Pl ai nt i f fs , t he y t he n f

i l e d t he i r a m e nde d c o m pl ai nt a l l e gi ng breach of

con t ract b ased on these post- rem oval dev el opm en t s w h i ch h ad caused B eaz l ey t o b ec om e a r ealpar t y. B ased on t h e f

oregoi n g di scussi on of t h e pa rt i es’ posi t i on s an d ou r de no vo revi ew , w e are c on vi n ced t h at t h e di st ri ct court di d n ot err cl earl y and i n di spu t ably. Th e di st ri ct cou rt confr on t ed w h at had qu i ckl y escal ated i n t o a fact

- i n t en si ve i n qu i ry i n t o w h et h er B eazl ey w as a n om i n al p art y at t h e t i m e of G E H F S ’ s rem ov a l

. T h e d i stri ct cou r t w a s con vin ced tha t, at th a t i n stan t, B e a z le y h a d d o n e n o t h in g m o r e th a n “h o ld th e m o n e y b a g ” a n d a w a it aut ho r i t at i ve i ns t r uc t i o ns r e ga r di ng t o w ho m t he b ags ho ul d b e pa s s e d. The di s t r i c t c o ur t v e r y w e l l m ay ha ve erred i n m ak i ng t hi s de t e r m i nat i o n, b ut o ur di s c us s i o n c o nf

i r m s t hata ny e r r o r m ad e fal l s w e l l s ho r t o f t he he i ght e ne d c l e ar and i ndi s

putabl e st andard. Thu s, t he ques t i on o f t he di st r i c t c our t ’ s put at i ve er r or i s p r o p e r l y o ne f o r a p p e a l , n o t m a nd a m us . Be y o nd o urc o nc l us i o n t hat 39 Beaz l e y has no t es t ab l i s he d a c l e arand i ndi s put ab l e r i ghtt o t he i s s uanc e o f t heN o. 09- 20005

See I n re Vo lkswage n , 54 5 F .3d 3 04, 311 (5th Cir. 2 008) (enbanc) (empha sizi ngth at 40 ev en if th e o thertwo requirements for relief are met, “‘the issuin g court, inth e e xe rcise of its discreti on, must b e satisfiedth at the writ is appropriate unde r the circu mstance s.’” (quoting Ch eneyv. U

.S. Dist. Cou rt , 5 4 2 U .S

. 3 6 7 , 3 8 0

– 8 1 ( 2 0 0 4)) ). Id

. at31 9. 41 Cf. id. at31 9. 42 See 28 U.S.C. § 6 52(d) (“[E]ach distric t co urt shall, b y local rule. . . provi de fo r th e 43 confi den tialityof the alte rnativ e di spute resolutionpro cesses a nd to prohibit disclo sure of co nfi de nti al di sp u ter es olu ti onc om mu nic a ti on s.”).

S. D. Tex. Local Rule 16. 4I (“All co m m u n i cat ions madeduring AD R proc eed ings 44 (o th er th a n co mmu nic a ti on s co n ce rnin g sc h edu lin g , a fi n al a gre em ent, orADRp rovid erf ee s) are confi denti al, are protec ted from di sclosure, a nd mayn ot b e di sclosed to anyone , inclu ding th e C ourt , b yth e pr ovid ero r th e partie s.”). 14 w ri t , w e m ak e no p ronou n cem en t one w ay or t h e ot h er as t o t h e cor rect n ess of t he di st r i c t c our t ’ s r ul i ng. C . W het her t he W r i t i s A ppropr i at e U nder t he C i r cum s t ances W h en exam i n ed u n der t h e t ot al i t y of t h e ci rcum st an ces of t he i ns t antc as e, Beaz l e y has fai l e d t o de m o ns t r at e t hati t s r i ght t o t he w r i t i s s o c l e ara nd i ndi sput abl e t ha t intervent i on i s nec es sa r y. W e a r e unper suade d t hat
m and am us w o ul d be ap prop r i at e . As w e s ai d i n In re V ol ksw ag en , “ w ri t s of 40
m and am us a r e s upe r vi s o r y i n nat ur e and ar e pa r t i c ul ar l y ap pr o pr i at e w he n t he i ssu es a l so h a ve a n im p orta n ce b ey on d th e im m ed i a te cas e.” T h e d i scre te fa cts 41
o f th is ca s e , vi z. , t h e di st i n ct fact

- i n t en si ve rem an d ana l ysi s t h at t h e d istr i ct
co ur t c o nduc t e d a nd whi c h we r e vi e w e d de no vo , e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e i s s ue p r e s e n te d h e r e w o u ld b e o f m in im a l “im p o r ta n c e b e y o n d th is ca s e .” 42 I V . M edi at i on O r der Beaz l e y al s o c o nt e nds t hati t is en t i t l e d t o a w r i t o f m and am us o r de r i ng t he di st r i c t c our t t o v ac at e i t s or der di r ec t i ng B eaz l ey t o m edi at e b ef or e J udge I s gur . Ac c o r di ng t o B eazl ey, Judg e I s gurv i o l at e d a f e de r als t at ut e a nd t he 43 S ou t h ern D i st ri ct of T exas’ s l ocal rul es t h at prohi bi t t h e d i scl osure of 44N o. 09- 20005

See 28 U.S.C. § 455 (a) (“Any ju stice, ju dge , or magistrat e ju dgeof the Unit ed S tates 45 shall di squalifyhim s elf in anypro ceedi nginwhich his imparti ality might re ason ably be qu es ti on ed .”); id. § 6 5 1 (a) (i n dicati n g th a t me di a ti onr equ ir esa“n eutr al thir d party”) ; id. § 653 (d es crib in gth e proc es s f orse le ctin g“n eutr als”)

. Ch eney , 5 4 2 U .S

. a t 3 8 0(inte rn al qu ot a ti onmark s an d citati ono mitt ed). 46 15 c om m uni c at i ons m ade dur i ng m edi at i on. Beazl ey spe c i f i c al l y o bj ec t s t o J udge Is gu r’ s stat em en t tha t B eazl ey “ di d n ot n egoti ate i n good fai t h

. ” B eazl ey al l eges t h at Jud ge Is g u r’s i m p a rtia li ty is q u e stio n a b le a n d th a t h e sh o u ld b e d isqua l i f i ed f r o m c o nduc t i ng f

ur t he r m e di at i o n i n t he i ns t antc as e . The Pl ai nt i f fs r e s po nd 45 t hatJ udg e I s gurv i o l at e d no r ul e b e c aus e t he r ul e s pr o t e c t on l y t he
c o nf i de nt i al i t y o f

“ c o m m uni c at i o ns , ” o f w hi c h Jud ge I s gur di s c l o s e d no ne . The P l ai n t i f fs f u rt h er urge t h at, un der B eazl ey’ s i n t erpret ati on , — i n t h e absen ce of t he pa r t i e s ’ c o ns e nt — a m e di at o r w o ul d no t e ve n b e pe r m i t t e d t o r e po r t t o t he di s t r i c t c o ur t o n t he pr o gr e s s o f m e di at i o n. W e cann ot gran t B eazl ey extr aordi n ary rel i ef on the b a sis i t seeks. Beaz l e y po i nt s t o no pr e c e de nt de m o ns t r at i ng t hata c o ur t ha s e ve r g r ant e d a
w r i t o f m and am us t o pr o t e c t a pe t i t i o ne r ’ s a s s e r t e d r i ghtno t t o a t t e nd n o nb in d in g m e d ia tio n . T h is is fo r g o o d re a s o n . W e re p e a t, a w r it o f m a n d a m u s is
a “dra sti c an d e xtra ord i n a ry re m ed y rese rv ed for rea l l y e xtra ord i n a ry cau ses ”; 46
an d, t h ere i s n ot h i n g extr aordi n ary abou t requi ri n g B eazl ey t o att en d m edi ati on a t w h ic h it w o u ld co n tr o l its o w n d e s tin y , v iz , any r es ol ut i on w oul d be vol untar y. A dd i t i on al l y, even i f Ju dg e I sgu r di d err by m ak i n g an un au t h ori zed dis cl osure t o t he di s t r i c t c o ur t , hi s a c t i o n was farf r o m t hatw hi c h woul d c o m pe l dr as t i c a nd
e x tr a o r d in a r y re lie f. B ea zley’ s p eti ti on on this gro u n d i s m eritl ess , an d w e h a ve n o occa sion to
v e n tu r e fu r th e r in to t h e a p p lic a b le th r e e -p r o n g e d m a n d a m u s a n a ly s is o n th is i ssue. V . C ONC L US I ONN o. 09- 20005

16 Beaz l e y has no t de m o ns t r at e d a c l e ara nd i ndi s put ab l e r i ghtt o t he i s s uanc e o f

a w r i t o f m and am us o n e i t he r o f t he g r o unds i t a dv anc e s . W e de ny i t s pet i t i on and deny a s m oo t i t s m ot i on t o s t ay. M AN DA M U S DEN I ED

. S TAY DE N I ED AS M OO T.