��ʮ���²����

The Court applies the “Bauman factors,” in determining whether mandamus is warranted: (1) whether the petitioner has “no other adequate means, such as a direct appeal,” to attain the desired relief, (2) whether “[t]he petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal,” (3) whether the “district court’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law,” (4) whether the order makes an “oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules,” and (5) whether the order raises “new and important problems” or legal issues of first impression. Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650, 654–55 (9th Cir. 1977). A clear error requires “firm conviction” that the district court “misinterpreted the law” or “committed a clear abuse of discretion.” In re Perez, 749 F.3d 849, 855 (9th Cir. 2014).

The Klamath Irrigation District (“KID”) filed a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the district court to remand its motion for preliminary injunction to the Klamath County Circuit Court. Around 2015, the Oregon Water Resources Department (“OWRD”) entered an Amended and Corrected Findings of Fact and Final Order of Determination (“ACFFOD”), which provisionally recognized claims to water rights in the Upper Klamath Lake and portions of the Klamath River within Oregon that were “determined” in 1975. The recognized claims under the ACFFOD provided the U.S. Bureau of Land Reclamation (“Reclamation”) the right to store water in Upper Klamath Lake and KID the right to use a specific amount of water for irrigation; however, KID’s rights are subservient to the Tribes’ rights and Reclamation’s Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) responsibilities. KID filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the Klamath County Circuit Court to stop Reclamation from releasing water from Upper Klamath Lake for its ESA responsibilities and the Tribes’ rights. Reclamation removed the action to federal court. KID argued that Klamath County Circuit Court’s in rem jurisdiction over the ACFFOD and KID’s motion required the Circuit Court to adjudicate under the doctrine of “prior exclusive jurisdiction.” The Court applies the “Bauman factors,” in determining whether mandamus is warranted, the third of which assessing whether an order is “clearly erroneous as a matter of law.” Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650, 654–55 (9th Cir. 1977). A clear error requires “firm conviction” that the district court “misinterpreted the law” or “committed a clear abuse of discretion.” In re Perez, 749 F.3d 849, 855 (9th Cir. 2014). The Court held “prior exclusive jurisdiction” did not apply, therefore there was no “clear error” and found that the historically “determined” rights were not previously adjudicated. The Court reasoned that without an adjudication, the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction over the rights challenged by KID’s motion. The Court did not consider additional Bauman factors after finding the third factor dispositive. DENIED.