## Facts

- Shareholders of First American Life Insurance Company sued the corporation and various directors, officers, and controlling persons for alleged federal and state securities-law violations, fraud, and related misconduct.
- The action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
- The district court ordered transfer to the Southern District of Alabama under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for convenience and in the interest of justice.
- The shareholders sought immediate review by (1) interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and (2) a petition for writ of mandamus directing the district judge to retain the case.
- The court of appeals had initially allowed the § 1292(b) appeal but reserved whether the appeal was properly permitted.

## Issues

1. Whether a § 1404(a) venue-transfer order is reviewable by interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
2. Whether mandamus may issue to vacate a § 1404(a) transfer order and require the case to remain in the original district.
3. Whether the presence of federal securities claims and specialized venue provisions creates a right to the plaintiffs’ chosen forum that supports interlocutory review or mandamus.

## Decision

- The court dismissed the interlocutory appeal, holding that leave to appeal under § 1292(b) had been improvidently granted.
- The court held that § 1404(a) transfer orders are not appropriate subjects for § 1292(b) review.
- The court denied mandamus because the transfer order reflected an ordinary exercise of discretion and did not justify extraordinary relief.
- The court rejected the argument that securities-law venue provisions entitled plaintiffs to interlocutory review or mandamus relief from a transfer order.

## Legal Principles

- A district court’s discretionary transfer order under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) generally does not present the type of “controlling question of law” contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and is therefore not reviewable by interlocutory appeal under that provision.
- Section 1292(b) is a narrow exception to the final-judgment rule and is not intended to permit piecemeal appellate review of fact-bound case-management rulings.
- Mandamus is an exceptional remedy and will not be used to review a § 1404(a) transfer absent a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power.
- Specialized venue provisions for securities claims do not categorically bar § 1404(a) transfers and do not, by themselves, create entitlement to immediate appellate review of transfer decisions.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit refused immediate appellate intervention in a discretionary venue transfer, dismissing the § 1292(b) appeal and denying mandamus because § 1404(a) transfer orders are ordinarily not subject to interlocutory review and the record did not show the kind of extraordinary error required for mandamus.


Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 433 F.2d 117 (5th Cir. 1970)