Case: 20-124   Document: 4    Page: 1    Filed: 04/10/2020




          NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.


  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
                ______________________

     In re: JOHN H. BANKS, MARY BANKS,
   ELIZABETH S. ERRANT TRUST, EUGENE J.
FRETT, individually and as trustee of the Victor J.
 Horvath and Frances B. Horvath Trust dated No-
  vember 1995, CHERIE R. OKONSKI, CRAIG D.
OKONSKI, ANDREW G. BODNAR, CHRISTINE M.
   ZAHL-BODNAR, EHRET MICHIGAN TRUST,
                    Petitioners
              ______________________

                       2020-124
                ______________________

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Court of Federal Claims in Nos. 1:00-cv-00365-EMR, 1:00-
cv-00379-EMR, 1:00-cv-00380-EMR, 1:00-cv-00381-EMR,
1:00-cv-00382-EMR, 1:00-cv-00383-EMR, 1:00-cv-00384-
EMR, 1:00-cv-00385-EMR, 1:00-cv-00386-EMR, 1:00-cv-
00387-EMR, 1:00-cv-00388-EMR, 1:00-cv-00389-EMR,
1:00-cv-00390-EMR, 1:00-cv-00391-EMR, 1:00-cv-00392-
EMR, 1:00-cv-00393-EMR, 1:00-cv-00394-EMR, 1:00-cv-
00395-EMR, 1:00-cv-00396-EMR, 1:00-cv-00398-EMR,
1:00-cv-00399-EMR, 1:00-cv-00400-EMR, 1:00-cv-00401-
EMR, 1:05-cv-01353-EMR, 1:05-cv-01381-EMR, 1:06-cv-
00072-EMR, 1:99-cv-04451-EMR, 1:99-cv-04452-EMR,
1:99-cv-04453-EMR, 1:99-cv-04454-EMR, 1:99-cv-04455-
EMR, 1:99-cv-04456-EMR, 1:99-cv-04457-EMR, 1:99-cv-
04458-EMR, 1:99-cv-04459-EMR, 1:99-cv-44510-EMR, and
1:99-cv-44511-EMR, Judge Eleni M. Roumel.
                  ______________________
Case: 20-124      Document: 4     Page: 2     Filed: 04/10/2020




2                                                 IN RE: BANKS




                         ON PETITION
                     ______________________

    Before REYNA, WALLACH, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
                           ORDER
    The parties in this longstanding litigation are cur-
rently engaged in alternative dispute resolution before the
trial court. Plaintiffs John H. Banks et al. (collectively,
“Banks”) now petition for a writ of mandamus asking this
court “to order that its footnote 4 [in Banks v. United
States, 721 Fed. App’x 928 (Fed. Cir. 2017),] be considered
mandatory” and to direct the United States to indicate
whether it agrees or disagrees with what appear to be
Banks’ calculations regarding real estate lost by erosion.
     To prevail on a mandamus petition, a party must show:
(1) it has a clear legal right to relief; (2) there are no ade-
quate alternative legal channels through which it may ob-
tain that relief; and (3) the grant of mandamus is
appropriate under the circumstances. See Cheney v. U.S.
Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 

, 380–81
(2004); Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court for the N. Dist. of Cal., 

, 403 (1976). Banks has not shown in the papers
submitted that it has satisfied that standard at this time.
      Accordingly,
      IT IS ORDERED THAT:
      The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
                                  FOR THE COURT

          April 10, 2020          /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
              Date                Peter R. Marksteiner
                                  Clerk of Court
s25