This morning the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential orders: one granting two petitions to appeal an interlocutory order certified by the Court of Federal Claims; one denying a petition for a writ of mandamus to order a district court to transfer a case; and one denying a petition for a writ of prohibition against the Court of Federal Claims. Here is text from the orders.
Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
Fairholme Funds, Inc. et al. (collectively, “Fairholme”) and the United States separately petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(2) to appeal the interlocutory order certified by the United States Court of Federal Claims. Both petitions are unopposed. Owl Creek Asia I, L.P. et al.; Appaloosa Investment Limited Partnership I et al.; Akanthos Opportunity Fund, L.P.; CSS, LLC; and Mason Capital L.P. et al. (collectively, “Owl Creek”) move for leave to file a brief amici curiae in support of neither party.
This court determines for itself whether it will grant permission to appeal an interlocutory order certified by a trial court. See In re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Patent Litig., 903 F.2d 822, 822 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We agree with the Claims Court and the parties that at least one of the issues raised by the certified order appears to satisfy the criteria set forth in § 1292(d) and warrants immediate review. We deem it proper to grant both petitions, leaving it ultimately up to the merits panel to decide what issues are appropriate to address on interlocutory appeal.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petitions are granted. This case is transferred to the regular docket. The appeals will be consolidated. Fairholme’s appeal will be designated as the lead appeal, and the government’s appeal will be designated as a cross-appeal. Fairholme’s opening brief is due within 60 days of the date of filing of this order.
(2) Owl Creek’s motion is granted to the extent that the amicus brief is accepted for filing. Any request for further relief from the court should be made after docketing.
In re Seattle SpinCo, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Petitioners Seattle SpinCo, Inc. et al. (collectively, “SSI”) petition for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and Wapp Tech Corp. (collectively, “Wapp”) oppose. We deny the petition.
***
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
In re Raghubir (Nonprecedential Order)
Vinodh Raghubir currently has a case pending before the United States Court of Federal Claims. He now petitions for a writ of prohibition, asking this court to “prohibit conduct pursuant to ‘the conspiracy to predetermine the outcome of judicial proceedings’ throughout proceedings now involving the Federal Court of Claims.”
Like a writ of mandamus, a writ of prohibition is a drastic remedy that is available only when a petitioner has a clear and indisputable right to relief and no adequate alternative legal channels through which to obtain that relief. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004); In re Missouri, 664 F.2d 178, 180 (8th Cir. 1981). Mr. Raghubir has not demonstrated that an appeal from an eventual final judgment of the Court of Federal Claims would be inadequate or that he has a clear and indisputable right to relief.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.