DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The Board has before it a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus of the Office of the United States Senate Sergeant at Arms (“SAA”) concerning the refusal of the Hearing Officer to dismiss the above-referenced matter. The Board has carefully reviewed the petition, the materials filed in support of it, and the materials filed in opposition to it. The Board has also carefully reviewed the pertinent orders of the Hearing Officer. Based on this review, the Board denies the petition.

It is settled that “a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, to be reserved for extraordinary situations . . . .” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamus Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (internal citations omitted). Specifically, under the law of the judicial circuit to which we are accountable, “[t]he Petitioner has the burden of establishing that its right to the issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and that it lacks adequate alternative means to obtain the relief sought.” In re Regents of Univ. of Cal., 101 F.3d 1386, 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (internal citation omitted), cert. denied sub nom. Genentech, Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. , 117 S. Ct. 1484 (1997). A writ may properly issue “only when there has been a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial authority . . . .” id., and even then the grant of the petition is a matter for sound discretion, see Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). In the case of a jurisdictional ruling, among other things, the challenged action must be “so plainly wrong as to indicate failure to comprehend or refusal to be guided by unambiguous provisions of a statute or settled common law doctrine. If a rational and substantial legal argument can be made in support of the questionable jurisdictional ruling, the case is not appropriate for mandamus . . . .” Formica Corp v. Lefkowitz, 590 F.2d 915, 921, (C.C.P.A.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 917 (1979) (quoting American Airlines, Inc. v. Forman, 204 F.2d 230, 232 (3d. Cir.), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 806 (1953)); accord In re Cordis Corp., 769 F.2d 733, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

Learn more and continue to read by downloading the following document(s).