In Re: Edward Bayuk v.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: July 30, 2025
• Docket: 25-1520
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

DLD-160 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 25-1520 ___________

IN RE: EDWARD BAYUK, Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to Civ. No. 1:23-cv-21314) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. June 5, 2025 Before: RESTREPO, FREEMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 30, 2025) __________

OPINION * __________ PER CURIAM

Edward Bayuk has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in which he requests

relief related to litigation in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(the “District Court”). We will deny the petition.

In 2021 and 2022, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada

awarded costs and attorney’s fees against Bayuk to William A. Leonard, Jr., the Chapter

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 7 trustee in an adversary proceeding captioned Leonard v. Morabito, et al., Adv. No. 15-

5046. In October 2023, Leonard filed a complaint in the District Court. He alleged that

Bayuk had fraudulently transferred his New Jersey property to MAXTMAX, LLC, a

limited liability company whose sole member is Bayuk, for the stated consideration of

$1.00. Leonard brought claims against Bayuk and MAXTMAX under the New Jersey

Uniform Voidable Transactions Act. See N.J. Stat Ann. 25:2-20 et seq. In November

2023, the District Court Clerk entered a default against the defendants, and on the same

day, Bayuk requested an extension of time to respond to the complaint. Litigation related

to Bayuk’s effort to vacate the default has been ongoing in the District Court since then.

In his mandamus petition, Bayuk alleges that the bankruptcy judgments against him were

fraudulently obtained. He requests that the District Court be directed to provide him with

an oral hearing, a jury trial, and damages.

A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary cases. See

In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). To obtain

mandamus relief, a petitioner “must establish that (1) no other adequate means exist to

attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear and

indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v.

Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (cleaned up). Here, Bayuk has not

established his entitlement to such extraordinary relief, as he has failed to show how the

District Court proceedings are inadequate to address his requests for a hearing, a jury

trial, and damages. Indeed, the District Court ruled on similar requests, and denied them

without prejudice, in an October 2024 order. To the extent that Bayuk seeks to challenge

2 that order, or any other order, such as the entry of a default, this mandamus proceeding

may not be used as a substitute for an appeal, which Bayuk may bring at the appropriate

time. See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 1996) (“[A] writ of mandamus may

not issue if a petitioner can obtain relief by appeal.”).

Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition.