Mandamus Granted

Before HIGGINSON, WILLETT, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

DON R. WILLETT, Circuit Judge:

A group of plaintiffs consisting of various business associations, including one located in Fort Worth, filed suit in the Northern District of Texas, challenging a new Final Rule issued by the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau (CFPB) regarding credit card late fees. The plaintiffs collectively sought a preliminary injunction against the Final Rule and requested expedited briefing and review in light of the Final Rule's imminent effect and the substantial compliance it entailed.

Rather than rule on the motion for preliminary injunction, however, the district court sua sponte considered whether venue was appropriate in the Northern District of Texas and invited CFPB to file a motion to transfer. CFPB obliged, and the district court granted its motion in short order, transferring the case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The plaintiffs now petition for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the district court clearly abused its discretion by transferring the case while the plaintiffs' appeal was already pending here and, alternatively, lacked jurisdiction to transfer the case. Because the plaintiffs appealed the district court's effective denial of their preliminary-injunction motion before the district court granted the motion to transfer the case, we agree that the district court acted without jurisdiction.

Forum disputes are nothing new in American litigation. Opposing parties frequently bicker over where their litigation belongs. And district judges are right to scrutinize whether legal challenges in their courts actually belong there. Procedure matters— in big and small cases alike —and venue, admittedly, can be vexing. But this much is clear: Once a party properly appeals something a district court has done —here, the effective denial of a preliminary injunction-the district court has zero jurisdiction to do anything that alters the case's status. Importantly, we are not announcing today a broad rule regarding inter-circuit transfers. Indeed, we do not even reach the question of where this case rightly belongs. Our decision today is exceedingly narrow and procedural, focused not on the correctness of the district court's transfer order but rather on whether the court had jurisdiction to enter it. On these facts, it did not.

Accordingly, we GRANT the petition for mandamus, VACATE the district court's transfer order, and ORDER the district court to reopen the case because its post-appeal transfer order was void for want of jurisdiction and to give notice to D.D.C. that its transfer was without jurisdiction and should be disregarded.

Download to read the full text.