GLD-056 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-3755
___________
IN RE: MICHELE A. CHRISTIAN; GEORGE H. CHRISTIAN,
Petitioners
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 10-cv-00789)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
December 2, 2010
Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 13, 2010 )
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioners Michele A. Christian and George H. Christian seek a writ of mandamus
compelling the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
among other things, to vacate the order transferring their case to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In February 2010, the petitioners filed a civil
complaint in the District Court, asserting that the defendants engaged in fraud and
conspiracy concerning Mrs. Christian’s refinancing of a mortgage loan, which was
secured with property owned by the couple. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
action because of improper venue, or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to the Eastern
District of Virginia. The District Court held a hearing on the motion on August 11, 2010.
By memorandum and order entered August 25, 2010, the District Court ordered the
transfer of the petitioners’ suit to the Eastern District of Virginia. The District Court
subsequently denied the petitioners’ motion to reconsider and ordered that a previously
imposed stay of the transfer order be lifted. This mandamus petition followed. The
petitioners have also filed a motion for leave to amend their mandamus petition to add
additional relief sought and a motion to stay the transfer pending our decision.
Mandamus is the appropriate mechanism to seek review of an allegedly improper
transfer order. See Sunbelt Corp. v. Noble, Denton & Assocs., Inc., 5 F.3d 28, 30 (3d
Cir. 1993). However, a writ of mandamus is a “drastic remedy” that should only be
granted in “extraordinary circumstances.” In re Nwanze, 242 F.3d 521, 524 (3d Cir.
2001). Mandamus petitioners must have no other adequate means to obtain the relief
desired and must show a “clear and indisputable” right to the writ. See Kerr v. United
States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). See also In re United States, 273 F.3d
380, 385 (3d Cir. 2001) (stating that Amandamus relief will >rarely if ever= be granted
directed to transfer orders@ (quoting Solomon v. Cont=l Am. Life Ins. Co., 472 F.2d 1043,
1045 (3d Cir. 1972))).
The petitioners fall short of demonstrating a clear and indisputable right to the
writ. The District Court concluded that venue is not proper in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania because not all the defendants reside in the District, a substantial part of the
2
events giving rise to the complaint occurred in the Eastern District of Virginia, and the
action may be brought in the Eastern District of Virginia. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1),
(2), & (3). In particular, the petitioners did not establish the District Court’s personal
jurisdiction over at least one of the defendants, and, though the parties disputed precisely
where the mortgage note was signed, it was not disputed that it was signed in the Eastern
District of Virginia. Moreover, the real property at issue is also located in the Eastern
District of Virginia. The petitioners argue that the District Court abused its discretion in
ordering the matter transferred, because the District Court should have decided that venue
was proper under the nationwide venue provision of the RICO statute, or should have
considered the alternative venue in Arizona proposed by the petitioners. They further
assert an abuse of discretion in accepting evidence at a hearing on the venue issue. We
conclude that the circumstances alleged by the petitioners do not warrant the drastic
remedy of mandamus. Inasmuch as venue appears to be proper in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the District Court’s decision to transfer
the complaint to the Eastern District of Virginia does not amount to a “judicial usurpation
of power.” In re Nwanze, 242 F.3d at 524.
The petitioners reiterate their objections to various rulings by the District Court
and asks us to compel rulings on their motions for clarification and for access to ECF (the
electronic filing system). The petitioners may renew their requests to the transferee
court. The extraordinary remedy of mandamus is not justified in this situation.
Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition. The motion to amend the
mandamus petition is granted. The motion to stay the transfer is denied.
3