to arbitrate a gateway issue is simply an additional, antecedent agreement the party seeking arbitration asks the federal court to enforce, and the FAA operates on this additional arbitration agreement just as it does on any other.” Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2772, 2777-78, 177 L.Ed.2d 403 (2010) (emphasis added). Though we favor Petitioners’ interpretation over that of the District Court, this does not conclude our analysis under the third Bauman factor. “[W]e will not grant mandamus relief simply because a district court commits an error, even one that would ultimately require reversal on appeal.” Wilson v. U.S. Dist. Court for E. Dist. of Cal, 103 F.3d 828, 830 (9th Cir. 1996) (quotation omitted); see also In re Morgan, 506 F.3d 705, 713 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Mehrmanesh, 652 F.2d 766,
holding that district court error was not clear error in denying petition for mandamus holding that a trial court does not commit plain error unless the error is clear under current law holding that error in denying such challenge is reversible error without demonstration of prejudice holding that before denying petition trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing and state specific reasons for denying the petition holding that district court error was not clear error because no prior ninth circuit authority prohibited the course taken by the district court