N OTE : This order is nonprecedential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 No s . 4:15

- cv

- 00701

- JSW

, Judge Jeffrey S. White , and 4:17

-

cv

- 00205

- HSG, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam

, Jr.

______________________

ON PETITION AND MOTION

______________________ P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

Pietro Pasquale Antonio Sgromo petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing t he United States District Court for the Northern District of California to gr ant 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 royalt y payments and compliance with license agreements

. The first case, Eureka Inve ntions, LLC v. Bestway (USA), Inc.

, No. 4:15

- cv

- 00701

- JSW, resulted in a settlement agreement in 2015. In March 2020, Mr. Sgromo mo ved to enforce the agreement, which was denied Case: 21-116 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 04/01/2021IN RE : SGROMO 2

o n 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 enf orce 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 i n December 2019 affirmed the judgment

. Mr. Sgromo now asksthis court to “vacate the district court’s judgment, summary judgment order an d” 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 b e satisfied for a writ toissue: (1) the petitioner must demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ; (2) the petitionermust 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

t hese contract

- related disp ute s do not fall within this court’s limited jurisdiction

. S ee 28 U.S.C. § 1295 . In fact, Mr. Sgromo has previously filed appeal s 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: 04/01/2021IN RE : SGROMO 3

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The petition is dismissed

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

as moot.

April 01 , 2021 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

s 31 Case: 21-116 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 04/01/2021