court made an error of law ... that fact itself does not render its decision subject to correction by mandamus, for ‘then every interlocutory order which is wrong might be reviewed under the All Writs Act.’ ”) (quoting Bankers Life, 346 U.S. at 383, 74 S.Ct. 145). Mandamus may issue only if we determine that the District Court’s decision was clearly erroneous. Under the present circumstances, we cannot say that the clear error standard is met. First, we note that the question in this case — whether the district court, as opposed to an arbitrator, must determine the applicability of an FAA exemption — is one of first impression in the federal courts of appeal. The absence of controlling precedent weighs strongly against a finding of clear error. See, e.g., In re Morgan, 506 F.3d at 713 (<HOLDING>); Medhekar v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of
holding that district judges failure to recuse was harmless error where the underlying question was patently clear and so there was no need to vacate the district courts decision and to remand to another district court judge to make the same clear determination holding that district court error was not clear error because no prior ninth circuit authority prohibited the course taken by the district court holding that a trial court does not commit plain error unless the error is clear under current law holding that a transfer order issued by a district court in another circuit is reviewable only in the circuit of the transferor district court holding that district court error was not clear error in denying petition for mandamus