Anant Kumar Tripati, et al., Appellants, v. Department of Justice, et al, 946 F.2d 1566 (D.C. Cir. 1991)Annotate this Case
Before D.H. GINSBURG, SENTELLE and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, and the opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to justify summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam); Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 994 (1980). The district court's dismissal of Counts I and II are affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in the district court's order filed May 3, 1990. Appellants' notice of appeal is construed as a petition for writ of mandamus insofar as it challenges the transfer of Counts III, IV, and V, and denied. See Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (en banc). Since these claims "might have been brought" in the Western District of Texas, their transfer did not constitute an abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See In re Tripati, 836 F.2d 1406, 1407 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (per curiam).
The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C. Cir. Rule 15.