In re NADJA YANG – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The Federal Circuit denied the petition for a writ of mandamus because the petitioner failed to satisfy the strict standard required for the extraordinary remedy.
Standard: Mandamus standard: no other adequate means, clear and indisputable right, and appropriateness under the circumstances
Vote: Panel Decision
Practical effect: The denial leaves the Court of Federal Claims' refusal to accept Yang's amicus brief in place, reinforcing that such decisions remain within the trial court's discretion absent a clear abuse.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Court of Federal Claims to grant leave to file an amicus brief. The appellate court found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to relief.

Background

Nadja Yang petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus to direct the Court of Federal Claims to grant her motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in Education Creditor Trust v. United States. The underlying case involves a suit by Education Creditor Trust against the United States regarding transactions with the Department of Education. Yang had previously submitted multiple copies of her proposed amicus brief to the Court of Federal Claims, which the trial court ordered returned as unfiled, citing the lack of a pending motion for which the brief would be relevant and noncompliance with court rules.

The court’s reasoning

The court reiterated that a petitioner seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must show no other adequate means to attain relief, a clear and indisputable right to relief, and that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. The court noted that the grant or denial of a request to appear as amicus is discretionary with the court. Yang’s submissions did not demonstrate clearly and indisputably that the Court of Federal Claims acted outside the permissible range of discretion.

What it means going forward

The denial leaves the Court of Federal Claims’ refusal to accept Yang’s amicus brief in place, reinforcing that such decisions remain within the trial court’s discretion absent a clear abuse.