Federal Circuit disposition — 24-136

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.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 P ROST , T ARANTO, and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
P ER 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: 24-136 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 2
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: 24-136 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 07/08/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

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,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is denied.
July 8, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-136 Document: 7 Page: 3 Filed: 07/08/2024

-- 3 of 3 --