100 F.4th 528
5th Cir.2024Background
- Multiple business associations, including the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, challenged the CFPB's new Final Rule lowering safe-harbor amounts for credit card late fees, which was to take effect May 14, 2024.
- Plaintiffs filed for a preliminary injunction in the Northern District of Texas, claiming urgency due to compliance burdens and statutory violations by the CFPB.
- The district court did not rule promptly on the preliminary injunction request; instead, it sua sponte questioned proper venue and invited the CFPB to move for transfer.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the district court's inaction was an effective denial of urgent injunctive relief.
- The district court, after the appeal was docketed, granted the CFPB's transfer motion and sent the case to the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs petitioned the Fifth Circuit for mandamus relief.
- The Fifth Circuit granted mandamus, ruling that the district court lacked jurisdiction to transfer the case once the effective denial of the injunction was appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court effectively deny the motion for injunction? | Failure to rule on an urgent injunction was an effective denial. | The short delay was not an effective denial; urgency was overstated. | Effective denial occurred based on urgency and context. |
| Did the district court have jurisdiction to transfer the case post-appeal? | Appeal of effective denial divested district court jurisdiction. | District court retained jurisdiction as no appealable order existed. | District court lacked jurisdiction after appeal filed. |
| Was mandamus appropriate to vacate the transfer order? | Mandamus was only remedy to undo void transfer. | Mandamus not warranted as district court acted within discretion. | Issuance of mandamus was proper under the circumstances. |
| Was plaintiffs' choice of venue entitled to deference? | Venue chosen was proper and entitled to respect. | Venue in D.C. more appropriate due to connections there. | Standard for venue transfer not met; deference upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott v. Perez, 585 U.S. 579 (preliminary injunction denials with practical effect are appealable)
- In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (standard/burden for § 1404(a) venue transfer, mandamus review)
- Clarke v. CFTC, 74 F.4th 627 (effective denial of injunction and interlocutory appeals)
- Dayton Indep. Sch. Dist. v. U.S. Min. Prod. Co., 906 F.2d 1059 (divestiture of jurisdiction upon appeal)