Case Name: In re BEHRINGER HARVARD LAKE TAHOE, LLC, Behringer Harvard Lake Tahoe, LLC, Petitioner, v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Reno, Respondent, Bank of America NA; Cushman & Wakefield of Colorado, Inc.; Christopher T. Donaldson, Real Parties in Interest
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-11
Citations: 583 F. App'x 611
Docket Number: No. 13-73101
Parties: In re BEHRINGER HARVARD LAKE TAHOE, LLC, Behringer Harvard Lake Tahoe, LLC, Petitioner, v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Reno, Respondent, Bank of America NA; Cushman & Wakefield of Colorado, Inc.; Christopher T. Donaldson, Real Parties in Interest.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 611–612

Head Matter:
In re BEHRINGER HARVARD LAKE TAHOE, LLC, Behringer Harvard Lake Tahoe, LLC, Petitioner, v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Reno, Respondent, Bank of America NA; Cushman & Wakefield of Colorado, Inc.; Christopher T. Donaldson, Real Parties in Interest.
No. 13-73101.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted July 8, 2014.
Filed July 11, 2014.
Dana G. Bruce, Esquire, Bobby G. Pryor, Esquire, Pryor & Bruce, Rockwall, TX, Leonard J. Feldman, Esquire, Stoel Rives, LLP, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
John S. Delikanakis, Esquire, Kelly Harrison Dove, Esquire, Snell & Wilmer, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Brian C. Whitaker, Esquire, Woods Erickson Whitaker & Maurice LLP, Henderson, NV, for Real Parties in Interest.
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate its order transferring this case to the Northern District of Texas for further proceedings. However, Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir.1977). Accordingly, the petition is denied.
DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.