Opinion ID: 3014944
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Should We Issue a Writ of Mandamus?

Text: The Wildermans ask us, as an alternative, to take jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 by issuing a writ of mandamus. This “extraordinary writ [can be] granted to review a stay order issued in a clear abuse of discretion.” Cheyney, 703 F.2d at 736. The Wildermans have the burden of establishing their “‘clear’” and “‘indisputable’” right to such a writ. Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. Underwriters, Inc., 846 F.2d 196, 199 (3d Cir. 1988) (quoting Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988)). Because the District Court retained oversight of the stay, requiring periodic reports on the state suit’s status, we conclude easily that the District Court did not abuse its discretion, and we deny issuance of a writ of mandamus. See Cheyney, 703 F.2d at 738 (denying mandamus where the district court “impos[ed] a moderate and actively monitored stay”).