Court Opinion

ID: 9835093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 02:05:20.931357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:57.549469
License: Public Domain

IKUTA, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
The majority has issued two separate opinions in.this case. This opinion holds that we lack jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from the district court’s case management order. I agree with this conclusion.
But the majority has issued a second opinion denying Swift’s petition for a writ of mandamus, see In re Swift Transp Co. Inc., No. 15-70592, 830 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2016), even though the district court has *900made repeated errors and is forcing Swift to litigate a matter that it may be entitled to arbitrate. For the reasons explained in my dissent to that opinion, I would hold that the extraordinary remedy of mandamus is warranted in this case.