Opinion ID: 778730
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appropriateness of Mandamus Relief

Text: 10 We apply the following five-factor test to determine whether the exercise of mandamus jurisdiction is proper: 11 (1) The party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as a direct appeal, to attain the relief he or she desires. 12 (2) The petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal.... 13 (3) The district court's order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law. 14 (4) The district court's order is an oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules. 15 (5) The district court's order raises new and important problems, or issues of law of first impression. 16 DeGeorge v. United States Dist. Ct. for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 219 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Bauman v. United States Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir.1977)). We have acknowledged that the application of these factors is by no means precise, United States v. Amlani, 169 F.3d 1189, 1194 (9th Cir.1999), and the factors should be weighed together based on the facts of the individual case. SG Cowen Sec. Corp. v. United States Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 189 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir.1999). 17 Application of the Bauman factors in this case favors granting the writ. Appellants have no other adequate means of obtaining the relief desired. They may not directly appeal the withdrawal of reference because we do not have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals from orders withdrawing reference of cases to the bankruptcy court. In re Kemble, 776 F.2d at 806; see In re Kissel Co., 105 F.3d at 1325. Appellants therefore satisfy the first Bauman factor. See SG Cowen, 189 F.3d at 914. 18 Appellants will be damaged [and] prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal. DeGeorge, 219 F.3d at 934. This factor is closely related to the preceding one. Id. at 935. Because the first two factors are closely related, and our case law precludes Appellants' direct appeal of the sua sponte withdrawal, the damage and prejudice Appellants have suffered thus far cannot be corrected on direct appeal. See id. The withdrawal occurred over two years ago, and Appellants sit in limbo despite two attempts to lift the stay on the enforcement of the unlawful detainer order. With the enforcement of the judgment stayed, Deborah continues to reside in the property at 446 S. Highland without making any rental payments, and Appellants are denied beneficial use of the property. Because Appellants' ability to bring a direct appeal is actually limited, and the type of damage and prejudice are relevant in determining mandamus relief, the second Bauman factor weighs in favor of Appellants. See id. 19 The district court clearly erred in withdrawing the reference. The Bankruptcy Code provides that the district court may withdraw the reference of a bankruptcy case on its own motion for cause shown. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) (Supp. V 1987). However, the district court failed to articulate any cause for its withdrawal of reference in this case. 20 We have considered the following factors in determining whether cause exists under § 157(d): the efficient use of judicial resources, delay and costs to the parties, uniformity of bankruptcy administration, the prevention of forum shopping, and other related factors. Security Farms v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehousemen, & Helpers, 124 F.3d 999, 1008 (9th Cir.1997) (citing In re Orion Pictures Corp., 4 F.3d 1095, 1101 (2d Cir. 1993)). 21 The district court's withdrawal of reference in this case was an inefficient allocation of judicial resources, especially because the bankruptcy court was more familiar with the facts and issues of the case, and had already lifted the stay to allow the unlawful detainer proceedings to continue. 22 Rather than enhancing efficiency, the district court's action created inefficiency, engendering a series of nonproductive motions and hearings. The district court's action also negatively impacted bankruptcy administration by needlessly disrupting the bankruptcy court's seamless processing of the case. The district court's withdrawal of reference effectively derailed the [bankruptcy] process provided by statute. Powelson v. More (In re Powelson), 878 F.2d 976, 982 (7th Cir.1989). 23 The district court's withdrawal also resulted in great delay and costs to the Appellants, implicating another cause factor. See Security Farms, 124 F.3d at 1008. Deborah has occupied the property rent-free for almost three years, resulting in a $35,000 loss of rental income. Finally, the district court's action encouraged forum shopping by essentially reversing the bankruptcy court's prior determinations. 24 Consideration of the factors we have previously applied to determine good cause for withdrawal all weigh against the district court's action, and support the conclusion that the district court clearly erred. This conclusion in turn weighs in favor of granting the writ. 25 Although the district court's sua sponte withdrawal does not appear to be an oft-repeated error, it nevertheless manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules in this case. DeGeorge, 219 F.3d at 934. Despite repeated requests to reconsider its ill-advised sua sponte withdrawal, the district court perpetuated its excursion outside the confines of its lawful jurisdiction. The fourth Bauman factor favors granting the writ. 26 Finally, the district court's sua sponte withdrawal raises issues of law of first impression. Id. In this case we are called upon to apply, for the first time in this circuit, a writ of mandamus to support appellate review of an otherwise interlocutory, unappealable order. Accordingly, this fifth and final factor supports granting the writ. In fact, this case presents the rare circumstance where all the Bauman factors favor granting the writ of mandamus.