Opinion
Miscellaneous Docket No. 127
08-10-2012
IN RE HOME PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioner.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of International Trade in case no. 08-00094, Judge Leo M. Gordon.
ON PETITION
Before PROST, MAYER and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
PROST, Circuit Judge,
ORDER
Home Products International, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus to direct the United States Court of International Trade to grant its motion for reconsideration and vacate its stay of the underlying case. The United States and Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. oppose the petition.
The underlying case involves the second administrative review of the antidumping order relating to certain ironing tables from the People's Republic of China. On December 15, 2011, the court sua sponte stayed proceedings in the case pending final disposition in litigation involving the third administrative review of the same products before another judge. Home Products moved the court to reconsider and vacate its stay order. The court has not yet acted on that motion.
The remedy of mandamus is available only in extraordinary situations to correct a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power. In re Calmar, Inc., 854 F.2d 461, 464 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A party seeking a writ bears the burden of proving that it has no other means of attaining the relief desired, Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Southern Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989), and that the right to issuance of the writ is "clear and indisputable," Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). A court may deny mandamus relief "even though on normal appeal, a court might find reversible error." In re Cordis Corp., 769 F.2d 733, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
The decision to stay proceedings is within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. United States, 124 F.3d 1413, 1416 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Home Products has not, in its papers submitted to this court, met the exacting standard required for mandamus. We note, however, that an unreasonably long delay in the related litigation or ruling on Home Products' motion to reconsider and vacate the stay might tip the balance in favor of mandamus relief upon reapplication in the future. See id. ("The trial court's discretion is not, however, without bounds.").
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
FOR THE COURT
_________
Jan Horbaly
Clerk
cc: Frederick L. Ikenson, Esq.
Carrie A. Dunsmore, Esq.
William E. Perry, Esq.
Clerk, United States Court of International Trade
s24