NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ERIC MALONE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2023-1899

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:22-cv-01910-EDK, Chief Judge Elaine Kaplan.

______________________ 

Decided: September 10, 2024

______________________ 

ERIC MALONE, Palm Desert, CA, pro se.

 BRENDAN DAVID JORDAN, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY,

FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR. 

______________________ 

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LINN and PROST, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 23-1899 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 09/10/2024
2 MALONE v. US

PER CURIAM. 

Eric Malone appeals a judgment of the United States 

Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed 

below, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

On February 9, 2022, Mr. Malone filed a complaint in 

the United States District Court for the Central District of 

California against Toyota Motor Sales (Toyota) seeking enforcement of an alleged arbitration award. The district 

court dismissed the complaint without prejudice due to 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Malone v. Toyota Motor 

Sales, No. CV220929FMOPVCX, 2022 WL 20834631 (C.D. 

Cal. Dec. 19, 2022). The United States Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Malone v. Sales, No. 22-56201, 

2023 WL 6889889 (9th Cir. Oct. 19, 2023). Mr. Malone appealed the district court and the Ninth Circuit’s decisions 

to us, and we dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Malone v. 

Toyota Motor Sales, No. 2024-1340, 2024 WL 1403641 

(Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2024). 

On December 27, 2022, Mr. Malone filed a complaint in 

the Court of Federal Claims naming the United States as 

the defendant and sought enforcement of the alleged arbitration award against Toyota. The government filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court of Federal Claims granted. 

The Court of Federal Claims concluded Mr. Malone did not 

raise a claim within its jurisdiction. Appx. 5–7.1 

Mr. Malone timely appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). 

1 “Appx.” refers to the appendix filed by Mr. Malone, 

ECF No. 32.

Case: 23-1899 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 09/10/2024
MALONE v. US 3

DISCUSSION

The Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over actions “founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an 

executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1491(a)(1). The jurisdiction of the Court of Federal 

Claims under the Tucker Act is “limited to actual, presently due money damages from the United States.” United 

States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976). We review the 

dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Res. Conservation Grp., LLC v. United States, 

597 F.3d 1238, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

The Court of Federal Claims properly concluded that it 

did not have jurisdiction over Mr. Malone’s claim, which is 

a request for enforcement of an alleged arbitration agreement against Toyota, not a claim for money damages

against the United States under the Tucker Act. See 

United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (“[The 

Court of Federal Claims’] jurisdiction is confined to the rendition of money judgments in suits brought for that relief 

against the United States, and if the relief sought is 

against others than the United States the suit as to them 

must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the court.” 

(internal citations omitted)). 

Mr. Malone also argues he has not been adequately 

represented by the United States in a case pending in the 

Ninth Circuit. Appellant’s Informal Br. at 2. The Court of 

Federal Claims has no jurisdiction over such a claim. 

Moreover, the United States has never represented Mr. 

Malone, who is a pro se plaintiff-appellant in this appeal 

and in the Ninth Circuit case. 

Case: 23-1899 Document: 39 Page: 3 Filed: 09/10/2024
4 MALONE v. US

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Malone’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. For the reasons discussed above, the Court of Federal Claims properly 

dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we 

affirm. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 23-1899 Document: 39 Page: 4 Filed: 09/10/2024