Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 73 Filed 07/08/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1571
`Case: 24-136 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2024
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`In Re CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING LLC,
`SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT HOLDING COMPANY,
`LLC, TIME WARNER CABLE ENTERPRISES LLC,
`SPECTRUM GULF COAST, LLC, CHARTER
`COMMUNICATIONS LLC,
`Petitioners
`______________________
`
`2024-136
`______________________
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
`District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:23-
`cv-00059-JRG, Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.
`______________________
`
`ON PETITION
`______________________
`
`Before PROST, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
`PER CURIAM.
`
`O R D E R
`Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the
`
`United States District Court for the Eastern District of
`Texas to dismiss this case for improper venue as to Charter
`Communications, Inc. (“CCI”) and Charter Communica-
`tions Operating LLC (“CCO”). Specifically, they argue that
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 73 Filed 07/08/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1572
`Case: 24-136 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 07/08/2024
`
`2
`
`
`
`IN RE CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`the district court improperly imputed to CCI and CCO the
`in-district location and business of CCI’s subsidiary, Spec-
`trum Gulf Coast, LLC, by erroneously focusing on whether
`the Charter entities operate as a single enterprise.
` Mandamus is “reserved for extraordinary situations,”
`Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S.
`271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). To obtain mandamus,
`the petitioners must show: (1) there are no adequate alter-
`native avenues for relief, (2) the right to issuance of the
`writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) issuance of the writ
`is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney v. U.S.
`Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). “[O]rdinar-
`ily, mandamus relief is not available for rulings on im-
`proper venue motions . . . because post-judgment appeal is
`often an adequate alternative means for attaining relief.”
`In re Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 50 F.4th 157, 159 (Fed.
`Cir. 2022) (cleaned up). While we have recognized manda-
`mus to be available for asserted 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) viola-
`tions in certain exceptional circumstances warranting
`immediate intervention to assure proper judicial admin-
`istration, In re Micron Tech., Inc., 875 F.3d 1091, 1096
`(Fed. Cir. 2017), we do not find such circumstances in this
`case.
`
`Petitioners’ arguments are materially the same as the
`arguments CCI raised in In re Charter Communications,
`Inc., No. 2023-136, 2023 WL 5688812 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 5,
`2023) (“Entropic”). There, despite having been apprised of
`the existence of the present matter in the statement of re-
`lated cases, we concluded that, “[a]t most, CCI’s arguments
`present a record-specific dispute” as to “whether CCI exerts
`control sufficient to impute its subsidiaries’ in-district op-
`erations to CCI under Fifth Circuit law,” and did not raise
`“the type of broad, fundamental, and recurring legal ques-
`tion or other considerations that might warrant mandamus
`review.” Id. at *2 (internal quotation marks and citations
`omitted). For purposes of meeting the standard for
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 73 Filed 07/08/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1573
`Case: 24-136 Document: 7 Page: 3 Filed: 07/08/2024
`
`IN RE CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
` 3
`
`mandamus in this improper venue dispute, we see no suf-
`ficient distinction between the present case and Entropic.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`The petition is denied.
`
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`July 8, 2024
` Date
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`