United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED June 18, 2024 No. 24-10463 Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk In re Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America; Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce; Longview Chamber of Commerce; American Bankers Association; Consumer Bankers Association; Texas Association of Business,

Petitioners. ______________________________

Petition from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CV-213 ______________________________ Before Haynes, ∗ Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Don R. Willett, Circuit Judge: This case returns to the circuit on a second petition for a writ of mandamus. The panel has changed, but the requested relief remains the same. Plaintiffs are a group of various business associations, including one located in Fort Worth, who are challenging a new Final Rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) regarding credit card late

_____________________ ∗ Judge Haynes concurs in the judgment. Case: 24-10463 Document: 42-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2024

No. 24-10463

fees. Plaintiffs contend the district court abused its discretion by transferring its challenge to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This young case already has a byzantine procedural history, but what’s important for the moment is that the district court transferred venue—twice—under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The first time, a different panel issued a writ of mandamus because the district court lacked jurisdiction to transfer the case under the one-court-at-a-time rule: Plaintiffs’ appeal of the effective denial of its preliminary-injunction motion was pending before us when the district court transferred venue. 1 Because that previous mandamus ruling was jurisdictional, we had no reason to reach whether the district court had properly transferred the case under § 1404(a). Now we do. With abiding respect for our district court colleague, we conclude that the transfer order misapplied the controlling § 1404(a) standard for transferring cases (and our precedent applying that standard), and the § 1404(a) transfer order was a clear abuse of discretion. We accordingly dissolve our earlier administrative stay, grant Plaintiffs’ petition for a writ of mandamus, and direct the district court to vacate its transfer order. 2 I The Credit Card Accountability and Disclosure Act directs CFPB to “establish standards for assessing whether” credit card late fees are “reasonable and proportional” to the “omission or violation to which the fee or charge relates.” 3 To that end, it authorizes CFPB to issue rules to _____________________ 1 In re Fort Worth Chamber of Com., 100 F.4th 528 (5th Cir. 2024). 2 We administratively stayed this second transfer order before the transferee court docketed the case. 3 See 15 U.S.C. § 1665d(a)–(e).

2 Case: 24-10463 Document: 42-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/18/2024

No. 24-10463

designate a “safe harbor” fee amount that is