NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: PIETRO PASQUALE ANTONIO SGROMO,

Petitioner

______________________

2021-116

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of California in 

Nos. 4:15-cv-00701-JSW, Judge Jeffrey S. White, and 4:17-

cv-00205-HSG, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

______________________

ON PETITION AND MOTION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Pietro Pasquale Antonio Sgromo petitions this court for

a writ of mandamus directing the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of California to grant Mr. 

Sgromo relief in two separate cases. Mr. Sgromo also 

moves to proceed in forma pauperis.

The two cases referenced in the petition involved related disputes over royalty payments and compliance with 

license agreements. The first case, Eureka Inventions, LLC 

v. Bestway (USA), Inc., No. 4:15-cv-00701-JSW, resulted in 

a settlement agreement in 2015. In March 2020, Mr. 

Sgromo moved to enforce the agreement, which was denied 

Case: 21-116 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 04/01/2021
2 IN RE: SGROMO

on May 26, 2020. Mr. Sgromo did not timely appeal that 

ruling, though he appealed other district court rulings in 

that case to the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit. He now asks this court to direct the trial 

court to “vacate [the] order denying the motion to enforce 

the Settlement Agreement [and] remand with instructions 

to enforce the Settlement Agreement.” Pet. at 1.

In the second case, Bestway (USA), Inc. v. Sgromo, No. 

4:17-cv-00205-HSG, the district court granted summary 

judgment against Mr. Sgromo’s claim to royalties and

awarded fees and costs against Mr. Sgromo. Mr. Sgromo 

appealed those decisions to the Ninth Circuit, which in December 2019 affirmed the judgment. Mr. Sgromo now asks 

this court to “vacate the district court’s judgment, summary judgment order and” deny the fee request. Pet. at 1.

Federal courts “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable 

to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). 

In general, three conditions must be satisfied for a writ to 

issue: (1) the petitioner must demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ; (2) the petitioner 

must have no other adequate method of attaining the desired relief; and (3) the court must be satisfied that the

“writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Cheney v. 

U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004).

Issuing a writ of mandamus in either case would not be 

necessary or appropriate in aid of our jurisdiction because 

these contract-related disputes do not fall within this 

court’s limited jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295. In fact, 

Mr. Sgromo has previously filed appeals in these cases to 

the Ninth Circuit, including the very orders in the Bestway

case that he now wants this court to consider. We do not 

have authority to overturn the Ninth Circuit. Nor can Mr. 

Sgromo use a writ of mandamus to circumvent the fact that 

he failed to timely appeal the Eureka order. 

Accordingly,

Case: 21-116 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 04/01/2021
IN RE: SGROMO 3

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition is dismissed.

(2) The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied 

as moot.

April 01, 2021 

Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

s31

Case: 21-116 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 04/01/2021