22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4c2,MEMORANDUM ** K. Clark petitions for a writ of mandamus arising from the district court’s decision to dismiss her complaint against Time Warner Cable (“TWC”) on the grounds that her claim against TWC under 47 U.S.C. § 258 (a) warranted a referral to the Federal Communications Commission in the first instance. 1 Clark’s mandamus petition seeks precisely the same relief as her appeal — a reversal of the district court’s decision, and a remand that requires the district court to consider the merits of her § 258(a) claim. This court will not “engage in extraordinary review by mandamus ... when it can exercise the same review by a contemporaneous ordinary appeal.” Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court, 137 F.3d 1420 , 1421 (9th Cir.1998) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 , 8 n. 6, 103 S.Ct. 927 , 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983)). Accordingly, Clark’s petition for mandamus is DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. . In a concurrently filed opinion, we address Clark's direct appeal from the district court’s decision. See Clark v. Time Warner Cable, 523 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir.2008).24:T4e7,

MEMORANDUM **

K. Clark petitions for a writ of mandamus arising from the district court’s decision to dismiss her complaint against Time Warner Cable (“TWC”) on the grounds that her claim against TWC under 47 U.S.C. § 258 (a) warranted a referral to the Federal Communications Commission in the first instance. 1

Clark’s mandamus petition seeks precisely the same relief as her appeal — a reversal of the district court’s decision, and a remand that requires the district court to consider the merits of her § 258(a) claim. This court will not “engage in extraordinary review by mandamus ... when it can exercise the same review by a contemporaneous ordinary appeal.” Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court, 137 F.3d 1420 , 1421 (9th Cir.1998) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 , 8 n. 6, 103 S.Ct. 927 , 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983)).

Accordingly, Clark’s petition for mandamus is

DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

. In a concurrently filed opinion, we address Clark's direct appeal from the district court’s decision. See Clark v. Time Warner Cable, 523 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir.2008).