Case: 20-152 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 11/25/2020
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: POINT CONVERSIONS, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company,
Petitioner
______________________
2020-152
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida in No.
0:18-cv-60912-BB, Judge Beth Bloom.
______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION
______________________
Before MOORE, O’MALLEY, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.
ORDER
Tropical Paradise Resorts LLC d/b/a Rodeway Inn &
Suites (“Rodeway”) filed the underlying suit against Point
Conversions, LLC (“PC”) in the Southern District of Flor-
ida. After the district court dismissed all claims, PC ap-
pealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit. On May 26, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed. PC subsequently asked the Eleventh Circuit to
transfer the case to this court, which the Eleventh Circuit
denied on July 16, 2020. After the Eleventh Circuit denied
Case: 20-152 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 11/25/2020
2 IN RE: POINT CONVERSIONS, LLC
rehearing, PC filed this petition seeking mandamus to di-
rect the district court to vacate its order or, alternatively,
to direct the Eleventh Circuit to transfer.
We must dismiss this request. PC was content with the
Eleventh Circuit adjudicating its appeal until it received
an unfavorable ruling. To the extent PC believes that the
Eleventh Circuit erred in exercising jurisdiction or erred in
affirming the district court’s judgment, the proper course
is to seek review by the Supreme Court of the United
States, which has jurisdiction to review decisions of the
Eleventh Circuit. It cannot seek mandamus from this
court, which does not have such authority. See In re Rob-
erts,
846 F.2d 1360, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (noting that this
court as “a co-equal member of a system of thirteen appel-
late courts. . . is not . . . possessed of jurisdiction to review
and reverse the judgements of the other twelve”); see also
Baker Perkins, Inc. v. Werner & Pfleiderer Corp.,
710 F.2d
1561, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citation omitted) (noting that
a petitioner must “show that the action sought to be cor-
rected by mandamus is within this court’s statutorily de-
fined subject matter jurisdiction”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) PC’s motion to file an untimely reply is granted.
ECF No. 21 is accepted for filing.
(2) The petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed.
(3) PC’s motion to schedule argument is denied.
FOR THE COURT
November 25, 2020 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
s29
