2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-28-2009 

# In Re: W i lli am L ans P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-1674

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: W i ll i am L an s " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1977. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1977NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 07- 2886

____________ G O V ER N M EN T O F TH E V I RG I N I SLA N D S; BU RE AU OF I NT E RN AL RE VE NUE

v. W I LLI AM M . LAN SDA LE; M AR I AN THI LAN SDA LE; L A IS L A V IR G E N , IN C .; M AR I NA P AC I F I CA OI L CO M P ANY; L ONE S OM E DOVE P E T RO L E UM CO M P ANY,

A p p e llan ts

____________ N o. 08- 1674

____________ I n r e : W I LLI AM M . LAN SDA LE; M AR I AN THI LAN SDA LE, P eti ti o n ers

____________ O n A ppeal fr om the D i s tr i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands

D i vi s i on of St . T hom as ( D . C . N os . 01- cv- 00157 and 92- cv- 00079) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R aym ond L . Fi nch

____________ A r gued D ece m ber10, 2008 B e f o re : F IS H E R , J O R D A N a n d S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: J anuary28, 2009)2

J ohn J . G i bbons ( A r gued) K e v in C . M c N u lty G i bbons O ne G at ew ayC ent er N ew ark, N J 07102- 5310 A t t orneys f

or App el lan t

s andP et i t i on ers Jam es L . H ym es, II I B artF. H i ggi ns ( A r gued) L aw O ff ices o f Ja m es L . H ym es, II I 5065 N orr e G ade, Sui t e 3 P. O . B ox 990 St . T hom as , V I 00804 A t t or neys f

orG overnm ent

of the Vi r gi n I s lands and B ur eau of

I nt er nalR eve nue A q u a n n e tte C h in n e ry -M o n tell O ffi ce of A t t orneyG ener al of V i r gi n I s l ands D epart m entof J us t i ce 34- 38 K r onpr i nds ens G ade G E R S C om pl ex, 2nd Fl oor C h a rlo tte A m a lie St . T hom as , V I 00802 A t t or ney f

orB ur eau of

I nt er nalR eve nue M ark D . H odge H o d g e & F ra n c o is 1 3 4 0 T aa rne b erg C h a rlo tte A m a lie St . T hom as , V I 00802 R i char d V annec k 9800 B ucca neerM al l , Sui t e 9 St . T hom as , V I 00802 A t t or neys f

orLones om e D ove Petr ol eum C om pany3

M ar i a T. H odge ( A r gued) H o d g e & F ra n c o is 1 3 4 0 T aa rne b erg C h a rlo tte A m a lie St . T hom as , V I 00802 Phi l l i p S. St enger St enger& St enger 4095 E m bas s yD r i ve, Sui t e A G r and R api ds , M I 49546 A tto rn e y s fo r J o a n n e E . B o zz u to

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . W i l l i am L ans dal e and M ar i anthi L ans dal e appe al thr ee or der s ent er ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands di s pos i ng of m ot i ons i nvol vi ng t ax r ece i ver s hi p and a rb itr a tio n p ro c e e d in g s . T h e L a n s d a le s h a v e a ls o f ile d a p e titio n f

o r a w ri t o f

m a n d a m u s . T he V i r gi n I s l ands B ur eau of I nt ernal R evenue ( “V I B I R ”) and the R ece i verhave f i l ed mo t i o n s t o d i s mi s s th e a p p e a l f o rl a c k o f

j u r i s d i c t i o n . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th b e l o w, we w i l l di s m i s s the appe al forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on and denythe pet i t i on fora w r i tof m and am us.T he compl ex fa ctual and l egal hi s t oryof thi s cas e i s w el l document ed i n pr evi ous 1 ru lin g s b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt . S e e G o v ’t o f th e V irg in Isla n d

s v . L a n sd a le , 172 F. Supp. 2d 6 3 6 (D . V . I. 2 0 0 1 ); G o v ’t o f th e V irg in Isla n d

s v . L a n sd a le , N os . 2001- 157, 1992- 0079, 2 0 0 4 W L 1 9 1 8 7 5 3 (D . V . I. A u g . 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 ). L a I s l a V i r gen mer ged i nt o M ar i na Paci fi ca O i l C om panyi n 1988 and M ar i na 2 Paci fi ca mer ged i nt o L ones om e D ove Petr ol eum C om panyi n 1992. 4 I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yforthe part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t oryof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor th onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. 1 A. In 1 9 9 1 , the V IB IR o b tai n ed a tax d ef ici en cyjud g m en t i n the D istri ct C o u rt agai ns tL a I s l a V i r gen, I nc. , a Lansda l e- ow ned company , i n the amountof $21, 895, 969. 00. T he D i s tr i ctC our ts ubs equent l yappoi nt ed a Recei veron behal f of the 2 L ans dal e corpor at i ons t o l ocat e and s ecur e as s et s bel ongi ng t o the corpor at i ons . I n 1998, th e V IB IR f

iled a c o m p lain t ag a in st th e L a n sd a les se e k in g to h o ld th e m p e rso n a llyliab le f o rth e i rc o rp o r a t i o n s ’ t a x l i a b i l i ty. Fol l ow i ng court - or der ed medi at i on, the V I B I R and the Lansda l es exec ut ed a f i nal s ett l ementagr eement( “FSA ”) i n N ovember2002. Pur s uantt o the FSA , the V I B I R w as enti t l ed to a sett l em ent am ou nt of $6 . 5 m i l l i on and the V IB IR agreed to “prom ptl yrequest the R ece i vert o fi l e a f

i nal acc ount i ng; r eques t , w i th [the V I B I R ’ s ] ful l cooper at i on and su p p o rt, th a t th e C o u rt d isc h a rg e th e R e c e iv e r; a n d a u th o riz e [ th e ] R e c e iv e r to re tu rn f u ll5

contr ol of Lonesome D ove t o t he Lansda l es al ong w i th al l corpor at e r ecor ds ( fi nanci al and otherw i s e) of Lonesome D ove. ” The L ans dal es agr eed t o “i m m edi at el yther eaf t er caus e Lonesome D ove t o us e i t s bes teff or t s t o s el l al l non- l i qui d as s et s ow ned by L o n e so m e D o v e ,” a n d “ [ a ]ll p ro c e e d s f ro m th e a ss e t li q u id a tio n ” w o u ld th e n “ b e p a id to [t he V IB IR ] and [w ou l d] not be credi t ed tow ard” the $ 6. 5 m i l l i on . T he F S A al so i ncl uded a di s put e r es ol ut i on pr ovi s i on, w hi ch s t at ed that“[a ] nycontr over s y , cl ai m or d is p u te ” w h ic h a ro s e “ o u t o f o r r e la te [ d ] t o ” th e F S A , w a s to b e re s o lv e d b ya rb itr a tio n . T he D i s tr i ctC our tappoi nt ed J oanne Bozzut o as the s ucce s s orR ece i verand, fol l ow i ng the appoi nt m ent , the R ece i verbegan the pr oces s of fi l i ng y ear s of Lonesome D ove del i nquentt ax r eturns , dr aft i ng s ecur i tyagr eement s , and mar s hal i ng corpor at e oi l and gas as s et s i nt o t he r ece i ver s hi p. A s the r ece i ver s hi p i nves t i gat i on pr ogr es s ed, the Lansda l es s oughtarbi tr at i on pur s uantt o the FSA beca us e theyper cei ved thatthe V I B I R w as notcompl y i ng w i th t he F S A ’s p ro v is io n re q u ir in g th e V IB IR to p ro m p tly re q u e s t te rm in a tio n o f th e re c e iv e rs h ip . T he Lansda l es r ai s ed thr ee i s s ues t o the arbi tr at or : ( 1) W hetherthe oi l and gas r oy al t i es bei ng col l ect ed bythe R ece i verw er e t o be cr edi t ed aga i ns tthe $6. 5 m i l l i on cas h por t i on of the s ett l ement ; ( 2) w hetherthe V I B I R vi ol at ed the FSA byfai l i ng t o m ove forthe ter m in a tio n o f

th e re c e iv e rsh ip ; an d (3 ) w h a t L o n e so m e D o v e ’s n o n -liq u id a ss e ts w e re , to w hi ch the V I B I R w as ent i t l ed t o t he pr ocee ds of s al e.6

O n M ay10, 2006, the arbi tr at orent er ed an I nt er i m A rbi tr at i on D eci s i on and A w ar d r es ol vi ng the fi r s tand s econd i s s ues r ai s ed bythe Lansda l es , fi ndi ng that( 1) t he o il an d g as ro y alt ies w ere to b e c o n side red li q u id as sets w h ich w ere to b e c red it ed tow ard the $6. 5 m i l l i on s ett l ements um , and ( 2) the V I B I R w as r equi r ed t o r eques tthe R ece i ver t o fi l e a f i nal acc ount i ng and r eques tthe D i s tr i ctC our tt o di s char ge the R ece i veri n or der t o return con trol of L on esom e D ov e t o the L ansdales. B. T he Lansda l es t i m el yappea l thr ee or der s i s s ued bythe D i s tr i ctC our tfol l ow i ng t he arbi tr at or ’ s I nt er i m A w ar d. Fi r s t , on J ul y24, 2006, the Lansda l es fi l ed a mot i on i n the D i s tr i ctC our tt o confi r m the arbi tr at or ’ s I nt er i m A w ar d, and on A ugus t3, 2006, the V IB IR f iled a m o tio n to v a c a te it. O n M a y3 0 , 2 0 0 7 , the D istric t C o u rt d e n ied b o th m ot i ons i n a s i ngl e or der( “A rbi tr at i on O r der ”) , expl ai ni ng i n a mem or andum opi ni on t hat beca us e the arbi tr at ordeci ded onl ytw o of the thr ee i s s ues s ubm i t t ed forarbi tr at i on, t he I nt er i m A w ar d w as nota fi nal aw ar d t o be r evi ew ed forconfi r m at i on orvaca t i on. Second, on A ugus t31, 2006, the R ece i verfi l ed a mot i on pet i t i oni ng the D i s tr i ct C o u rt to ru le th a t th e C o u rt h a d e x c lu siv e ju risd ictio n o v e r d e ter m in in g th e rig h tf u l as se ts of Lonesome D ove. O n M ay14, 2007, the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the R ece i ver ’ s m ot i on ( “D et erm i nat i on O r der ”) . T he D i s tr i ctC our texpl ai ned that“i f anyi s s ue i s nonarbi tr abl e, th e a rb itrato r la c k s ju risd ictio n o v e r it” a n d th e D istric t C o u rt c o u ld v a c a te th e a w a rd if the a rbitrator ex ce ed ed h is po w er, bu t con clud ed that “itw as n o t th e a p p rop ri ate jun cture7

to ” d e c id e w h e th e r it h a d e x c lu siv e ju risd ictio n o v e r “ [ t]h e d e ter m in a tio n o f w h a t as se ts ar e the corpor at e pr opert i es of Lonesome D ove, how and w hen thos e as s et s ar e t o be liq u id a te d , a n d th e d is tr ib u tio n p ro c e e d s .” T hi r d, on N ovember15, 2006, the R ece i verfi l ed a mot i on as ki ng the D i s tr i ct Co u r tt o o r d e rWi l l i a m L a n s d a l e t o r e tu rn o v e r$ 1 . 6 mi l l i o n t o L o n e s o me Do v e . On M ay1 4 , 2 0 0 7 , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted th e R ec eive r’s m o ti o n (“T u rno v er O rde r”), sta tin g th a t th e R e c e iv e r “ su b m itt e d u n c o n tra d icte d e v id e n c e th a t W ill iam M . L a n sd a le d i v e r t e d r e v e n u e s f

r o m o i l a n d g a s l e a s e s th a ta r e th e u n d i s p u t e d a s s e t s o f Lo n e s o me D o v e .” II. W e begi n byaddr es s i ng the appe l l ees ’ as s ert i on thatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on over th e se o rd e rs. W e “ e x e rc ise d e n o v o re v iew o v e r a n a rg u m e n t alle g in g a lac k o f a p p e llate j ur i s di ct i on. ” R e ill

y v . C ity o

f A tla n tic C ity , 532 F. 3d 216, 223 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . U nder28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , w e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r “ f in a l d e c is io n s ” o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . O r t izv. D odge , 126 F. 3d 545, 547 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . T o cons t i tut e an appeal abl e fi nal deci s i on, § 1291 “mostoft en r equi r es thata di s tr i ctcourti s s ue a de ci s i on thatcompl et el yends t he l i t i gat i on, ” I

n r e C ar co El ectr oni cs , 536 F. 3d 211, 213 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , i n or dert o fur t her th e in te re s t o f

a v o id in g in e f

f ic ie n t p ie c e m e a l a p p e a ls . Fr eder i co v. H om e D epot , 507 F . 3 d 1 8 8 , 1 9 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ).8

W e agr ee w i th the appe l l ees thatnone of the thr ee or der s cons t i tut e fi nal deci s i ons under§ 1291 beca us e thi s “mat t err emai ns open, unfi ni s hed [a nd] i nconcl us i ve. ” C ohen v. B enef i ci alI ndus . Loan C or

p. , 3 3 7 U .S . 5 4 1 , 5 4 6 (1 9 4 9 ); s e e a l s o A l u mi n u m C o . o

f A m. v. B eaz erE . , I

nc. , 1 2 4 F .3 d 5 5 1 , 5 5 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (s tatin g th a t a f in a l d e c isio n “ w ill ful l yr es ol ve al l cl ai m s pr es ent ed t o the di s tr i ctcourt ” and “ aft erthe dec i s i on has been i s s ued, ther e w i l l be nothi ng fur therforthe di s tr i ctcourtt o do”) . Speci fi cal l y , the A rbi tr at i on O r derr efr ai ns fr om confi r m i ng orvaca t i ng the I nt er i m A w ar d i n ant i ci pat i on o f f u rth e r a rb itratio n p ro c e e d in g s, th e D e ter m in a tio n O rd e r d e c lin e s to ru le th a t ce rta in as s etdet erm i nat i ons bel ong s ol el yt o the D i s tr i ctC our t , and the Turnove rO r derdoes not c o n c lu s iv e ly re s o lv e th e o n g o in g a s s e t d e te rm in a tio n s . S e e Is id o rP a ie w o n s k y A s s o c s ., I nc. v. Shar

p P r ops . , I

nc. , 998 F. 2d 145, 150 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( expl ai ni ng thata fi nal deci s i on “di s pos es of the w hol e s ubj ect ” and “ gi ves al l the r el i ef thatw as cont empl at ed”) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). N ordo anyof the thr ee or der s fal l w i thi n the narr ow l y - cons trued col l at er al or der d o c tr in e . S e e W

e , In c . v. C ity o

f P h ila d e lp h ia , 174 F. 3d 322, 324 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( “U nder the ‘col l at eral order’ do ct ri ne, . . . a decis i on of a d i stri ctcou rtm aybe ap pealabl e as a

‘ fi nal deci s i on’ under28 U . S. C . § 1291 i f i t( 1) ‘ concl us i vel ydet erm i ne[s ] ’ the di s put ed ques t i on; ( 2) ‘ r es ol ve[s ] an i m por t anti s s ue compl et el ys epar at e’ fr om the mer i t s of the act i on; and ( 3) i s ‘ eff

ect i vel yunr evi ew abl e’ on appea l fr om a fi nal j udgm ent . ”) ( quot i ng C oopers & Lybr and v. Li ves ay , 4 3 7 U . S . 4 6 3 , 4 6 8 -69 (19 7 8 )).T he Lansda l es r es tthei rj ur i s di ct i onal ar gum enton the pl ai n l anguage of 3 § 16( a) ( 1) ( D ) , butthei ri nt erpr et at i on of thats t atut orypr ovi s i on i gnor es the cont ext p rov ided b ythe re st of

§ 1 6 . A cc o rdin g to § 1 6 (b), w h ich d esig n ates c ertain o rde rs re g a rd in g a rb itr a tio n a s in te rl o c u to ry, “ a n a p p e a l m a yn o t b e ta k e n f ro m a n . . . o rd e r . . . di r ect i ng arbi tr at i on t o pr ocee d. ” 9 U . S. C . § 16( b) ( 2) . T hatw as the pr act i cal eff ectof the A rbi tr at i on O r derher e: i ti ns truct ed the part i es t o compl et e arbi tr at i on befor e s eeki ng r evi ew of the aw ar d. B ecaus e § 16 w as i nt ended “ t o pr eventthe appe l l at e as pectof the l i t i g a t i o n p r o c e s s f

r o m i mp e d i n g th e e x p e d i t i o u s d i s p o s i t i o n o f a n a rb i tr a t i o n , ” Da v i d D. S ie g e l, P r act i ce Com m entar y: Appeal

s f r om A r bi tr abi l i t

y D et er m i nat i ons , 9 U. S . C. A. § 1 6 , at 3 5 2 (W e st S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ), p e rm itt in g a n a p p e a l o f th e A rb itratio n O rd e r w o u ld frus tr at e r atherthan furtherthe s ect i on’ s purpos e. 9 T h e L a n sd a les a rg u e a ltern a tiv e lyth a t ju risd ictio n o v e r th e th re e o rd e rs e x ists i ndepende ntof § 1291. Fi r s t , the Lansda l es as s ertthatw e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s A rbi tr at i on O r derunders ect i on 16 of the Feder al A rbi tr at i on A ct (“ F A A ” ). W e d is a g re e . T h e F A A p ro v id e s , in tera lia , thata partym ayappea l an or der

“ c o n f i r mi n g o rd e n y i n g c o n f

i r ma t i o n o f

a n a wa r d o rp a r t i a l a wa r d . ” 9 U. S . C. § 1 6 (a)(1)(D ). H ere , the D istri ct C o u rtd ec li n ed to co n firm o r va ca te th e In teri m A w ard o n th e g ro u n d th a t it w a s n o t f in a l a n d th e re f

o re n o t r ip e f

o r c o n f ir m a tio n o r v a c a tio n . T h e D istric t C o u rt re a so n e d th a t if it w e re to c o n f irm th e In ter im A w a rd – w h ich o n ly re so lv e d tw o o f

th e th re e iss u e s s u b m itt e d to a rb itratio n – a n d ter m in a te th e re c e iv e rsh ip u p o n th e V IB IR ’s m o tio n , the a rb itrato r m ig h t b e h in d e re d in re so lv in g th e th ird iss u e still p e n d in g in a rb itratio n , inv o lv in g th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th e n o n -liq u id a ss e ts b e lo n g in g to L o n e so m e D o v e . B e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt p o stp o n e d d e ter m in in g th e p a rties ’ d isp u te unt i l al l thr ee i nt err el at ed i s s ues ar e r es ol ved i n arbi tr at i on, the A rbi tr at i on O r deri s not ap p ea lable u n d er § 1 6 (a)(1)(D ). See , e. g. , Mi ddl eby Corp. v. H us s m an C or

p. , 962 F. 2d 310

614, 616 ( 7th C i r . 1992) ( fi ndi ng thatunder§ 16( a) ( 1) ( D ) a del ayi n confi r m at i on “i s a fa r cryfr om ‘ deny i ng’ confi r m at i on” bec aus e “the courtpr om i s es fi nal j udgm entatthe ap p rop ri ate ti m e” ). N ext , the Lansda l es as s ertthatw e mayr evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s D et erm i nat i on O r derpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1292( a) ( 2) and 9 U . S. C . § 16( a) ( 1) ( A ) and ( B ) . W e r ej ect both cont ent i ons . Fi r s t , 28 U . S. C . § 1292( a) ( 2) pr ovi des appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on over “[i ] nt er l ocut oryor der s appoi nt i ng r ece i ver s , orr efus i ng or der s t o w i nd up r ece i ver s hi ps ort o t ake s t eps t o acc om pl i s h the purpos es ther eof, s uch as di r ect i ng s al es orother di s pos al s of pr operty . ” The L ans dal es ar gue thatbydeny i ng the R ece i ver ’ s m ot i on for the D i s tr i ctC our tt o decl ar e exc l us i ve j ur i s di ct i on overthe as s etdet erm i nat i on, the C o u rt’s D e ter m in a tio n O rd e r h a s th e e f f e c t o f re f u sin g to w in d u p th e re c e iv e rsh ip o r to t ake s t eps t o carr youtthatpurpos e. H ow ever , § 1292( a) ( 2) m us tbe “i nt erpr et ed n a rro w ly ” a n d “ p e rm it[s ] a p p e a ls o n lyf ro m th e th re e d isc re te c a teg o rie s o f re c e iv e rsh ip or der s s peci fi ed i n t he s t atut e, namel y[1] or der s appoi nt i ng a r ece i ver , [2] or der s r efus i ng t o w i nd up a r ece i ver s hi p, and [3] or der s r efus i ng t o t ake s t eps t o acc om pl i s h the purpos es of w i ndi ng up a r ece i ver s hi p. ” I n r e Pres s m an- G utm an C o. , 4 5 9 F . 3 d 3 8 3 , 3 9 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d c itatio n o m itt e d ). T h e D e ter m in a tio n O rd e r f a lls in to none of thes e thr ee di s cr et e ca t egor i es and thus appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on does notexi s tunder § 1 2 9 2 (a)(2).11

Second, 9 U . S. C . § 16( a) ( 1) ( A ) and ( B ) perm i tan appe al fr om an or der“r efus i ng a s t ayof anyact i on unders ect i on 3 of thi s t i t l e” oran or der“deny i ng a pet i t i on under se c tio n 4 o f

th is titl e to o rd e r a rb itratio n to p ro c e e d .” T h e D e ter m in a tio n O rd e r c lea rly does notr es pond t o a mot i on t o s t ayora mot i on t o compel and thus does notfal l under the expl i ci tl anguage of § 16( a) ( 1) ( A ) or( B ) . H ow ever , the Lansda l es ar gue thatby r efus i ng t o rul e on the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on overcert ai n as s etdet erm i nat i ons , t he D eterm ination O rde r ha s the sam e e ff ec t as an o rde r de n y ing a stayo f d istri ct co u rt lit ig a tio n a n d a n o rd e r d e n y in g a rb itratio n b e c a u se th e R e c e iv e r’s c o n tin u in g ro le h a s, “ in p ra c tica l term s,” re stric ted th e a rb itratio n p ro c e e d in g s. W e d isa g re e w ith th is char act er i zat i on. T he D et erm i nat i on O r derpl ai nl yr ej ect ed the R ece i ver ’ s ar gum entt hat the D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d eff ect i vel yr emove cert ai n as s etdet erm i nat i ons fr om arbi tr at i on byexer ci s i ng excl us i ve j ur i s di ct i on, and ther efor e, contr aryt o the Lansda l es ’ as s ert i on, th is ru lin g d o e s n o t r e s u lt in p re c lu d in g a rb itr a tio n o f th e is s u e s c o m m itte d to th a t f o ru m . A ccor di ngl y , the Lansda l es ’ ar gum entthat§ 16( a) ( 1) ( A ) and ( B ) ar e i m pl i cat ed bythe D et erm i nati on O rderfai l s. F in a lly , the L a n sd a les a rg u e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt’s T u rn o v e r O rd e r is i m m edi at el yappea l abl e under9 U . S. C . § 16( a) ( 1) beca us e the Turnove rO r der , l i ke the D et erm i nat i on O r der , i s equi val entt o an or derdeny i ng a mot i on t o compel orr efus i ng a s t ay . A gai n, w e di s agr ee w i th the Lansda l es ’ char act er i zat i on and fi nd no al t ernat i ve b a s is f o r e x e rc is in g ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h e T u rn o v e r O rd e r. See , e. g. , F. T. C . v. O ver s easT he Lansda l es al s o as s ertthatthe doctr i ne of pe ndentappel l at e j ur i s di ct i on 4 perm i t s us t o r evi ew thes e or der s . B eca us e ther e i s no appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on overanyof th e th re e o rd e rs , w e re

je c t th is a rg u m e n t. See H oxw or th v. B l i nder, R obi ns on & Co. , I nc. , 90 3 F . 2d 18 6, 20 9 (3d C i r. 19 90 ) ( “[P ]enden tapp el l at e j uri sdi ct i on ov er an ot herw i se unappea l abl e or deri s avai l abl e onl yt o the ext entnece s s aryt o ens ur e meani ngful r evi ew o f a n ap p ea lable o rde r. ”). 12 U nl i m i t ed Agency, I

nc. , 873 F. 2d 1233, 1235 ( 9th C i r . 1989) ( fi ndi ng thatan or der d ire c tin g f

u n d s to b e tu rn e d o v e r to a re c e iv e r is a n o n -f in a l o rd e r a n d n o t ap p e a lab le p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 2 (a )); U ni t ed Stat es v. B eas l ey , 5 5 8 F . 2 d 1 2 0 0 , 1 2 0 1 (5th C ir . 1977) ( fi ndi ng no j ur i s di ct i on overa turnoveror derr equi r i ng funds t o be pai d t o a re c e iv e r); U

ni t ed Stat es v. C hel

s ea Tow ers , I

nc. , 404 F. 2d 329, 330 ( 3d C i r . 1968) ( “The o rd e r re q u irin g th e d e liv e ryo f c e rta in d e p o sits to th e re c e iv e r is n e ith e r f in a l n o r w ith in an yca tego ryo f a p p ea lable interloc u toryo rde rs. ”). 4 T her efor e, w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on overthe thr ee or der s thatthe Lansda l es appea l beca us e the or der s ar e notfi nal under28 U . S. C . § 1291 and ther e ar e no al t ernat i ve gr ounds forexer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on atthi s t i m e. III . T h e L a n s d a l e s h a v e a l s o f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f

o ra wr i to f

ma n d a mu s , a s k i n g th a twe d ir ec t th e D istri ct C o u rt“to s tayo r dism iss th e p en d ing li ti g ati o n , d isch arg e the rec eive r, a n d f in a lly a n d c o m p le te ly su b m it th e c o n te s te d is s u e s to a rb itr a tio n .” M a n d a m u s re lief

is “ a d ra stic a n d e x tra o rd in a ryre m e d yre se rv e d f o r re a lly extr aor di narycaus es . ” C hen ey v. U nited S tates D ist . C ou rt , 542 U . S. 367, 380 ( 2004)13

(in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d c itatio n o m itt e d ). W e h a v e e x p lain e d th a t “m a n d a m u s is nota mer e al t ernat i ve t o an appe al and i ns t ead pr oper l yi s vi ew ed as a s afe tyval ve i n t he f in a l-ju d g m e n t ru le p ro v in g a d ra stic re m e d y. . . o n lyin e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s in r es pons e t o an ac tamount i ng t o a j udi ci al us urpat i on of pow er . ” I n r e Pres s m an- G utm an C o. , 459 F. 3d at398 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T hus , t o qual i fyfor m a n d a m u s re lief

, a p e tit io n e r m u st d e m o n stra te “ th a t th e re is (1 ) ‘n o o th e r a d e q u a te m eans ’ t o att ai n t he r el i ef s ought , and ( 2) a r i ghtt o the w r i tthati s ‘ cl earand in d isp u tab le[ ]’ a n d , (3 ) e v e n if th e se f irst tw o c o n d iti o n s a re m e t, th e re v iew in g c o u rt in i t s di s cr et i on m us tconcl ude thatthe w r i t‘ i s appr opr i at e underthe ci r cumst ance s . ’ ” In re B r is coe , 448 F. 3d 201, 212 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng C heney , 5 4 2 U . S . at 38 0 -81 ). U pon car eful r evi ew of the Lansda l es ’ as s ert i ons , w e fi nd thatthe pet i t i oner s have fai l ed t o carr ythei rbur den of de m ons tr at i ng ent i t l ementt o s uch extr aor di naryr el i ef. T he L ans dal es have notes t abl i s hed theyl ack a l t ernat i ve ade quat e means t o obt ai n r el i ef, g iv e n th e a v a ilab ili tyo f th e a rb itratio n p ro c e ss , an d m o re o v e r, th e yh a v e f a iled to demonstr at e a c l earand i ndi s put abl e r i ghtt o the r el i ef theys eek. W e ar e unconvi nced th a ti s s u i n g th e w r i ti s w a r r a n t e d u n d e rth e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f th i s c a s e a n d , a c c o r d i n g l y, w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on fora w r i tof m andamus. N everthel es s , w e ar e mi ndful of the e x tra o rd in a rylen g th o f

tim e th is m a tter h a s b e e n p e n d in g a n d u rg e th e D istric t C o u rt to act i vel yfac i l i t at e and e ncour age a fi nal r es ol ut i on. A r ece i ver s hi p pr oces s thatbecomes i nt erm i nabl e i s notappr opr i at e.14 I V. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l di s m i s s the appe al forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on and den ythe p et i t i on for a w ri tof m and am us.