## Facts

- Silver Sage Partners, Ltd., along with certain general partners and individuals (Silver Sage), sued the City of Desert Hot Springs and related city entities and officials in federal district court, asserting Fair Housing Act and related civil-rights claims tied to the City’s conduct affecting a housing redevelopment effort.
- A jury returned a verdict in Silver Sage’s favor and awarded $3,040,439 in damages.
- The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted the defendants a new trial limited to the issue of damages.
- In granting a new trial on damages, the district court cited concerns that included causation, insufficient evidentiary support for the damages award, and failure to mitigate.
- Rather than waiting to challenge the new-trial order through an appeal after a final judgment, Silver Sage filed a petition in the Ninth Circuit seeking a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate the new-trial-on-damages order and reinstate the jury’s damages award.
- The Ninth Circuit considered the petition under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), with the City and related defendants as real parties in interest.

## Issues

1. Whether the Ninth Circuit should issue a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) to vacate a district court order granting a new trial limited to damages after a jury verdict.
2. Whether Silver Sage showed a “clear and indisputable” right to relief and satisfied the Ninth Circuit’s Bauman guidelines for mandamus, including the lack of any other adequate means of relief.
3. Whether the availability of review by direct appeal after final judgment made mandamus inappropriate in this posture.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for a writ of mandamus.
- The court held that mandamus was not warranted to overturn the district court’s order granting a new trial on damages.
- The court concluded that ordinary appellate review after final judgment provided an adequate means to seek correction of any error in the new-trial order.

## Legal Principles

- The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), permits federal appellate courts to issue writs “necessary or appropriate” in aid of their jurisdiction, but mandamus remains an extraordinary remedy.
- Mandamus traditionally is used to confine a lower court to the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction or to compel it to act where it has a duty to do so; it is not a routine substitute for appeal.
- A petitioner must carry the burden of showing that the right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable.” (citing Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland and related authority).
- In the Ninth Circuit, the Bauman guidelines inform whether mandamus should issue, including: (1) no other adequate means (such as direct appeal) to obtain relief; (2) prejudice not correctable on appeal; (3) clear error as a matter of law; (4) repeated error or persistent disregard of rules; and (5) whether the issue presents an important question or one of first impression.
- Orders granting a new trial under Rule 59—especially when based on fact-bound judgments about causation, the evidentiary basis for damages, or mitigation—fall within an area of substantial trial-court discretion and ordinarily are reviewable through the standard appellate process after final judgment.
- The availability of a direct appeal after completion of the new trial and entry of final judgment generally defeats mandamus because the alleged error can be reviewed and, if necessary, remedied through ordinary appellate procedures.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit denied Silver Sage’s mandamus petition because mandamus is reserved for exceptional situations and Silver Sage did not show a clear and indisputable entitlement to immediate relief; any challenge to the district court’s damages-only new-trial order could be addressed through a direct appeal after final judgment.


Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. United States District Court, 1998 WL 246526 (1998)