Court Opinion

ID: 9956512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 15:01:19.16035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:34.301610
License: Public Domain

Case: 24-1340     Document: 26           Page: 1       Filed: 04/02/2024

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                       ERIC MALONE,
                       Plaintiff-Appellant

                                   v.

                TOYOTA MOTOR SALES,
                   Defendant-Appellee
                 ______________________

                         2024-1340
                   ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Central District of California in No. 2:22-cv-00929-FMO-
 PVC, Judge Fernando M. Olguin.

            -------------------------------------------------

                       ERIC MALONE,
                       Plaintiff-Appellant

                                   v.

                TOYOTA MOTOR SALES,
                   Defendant-Appellee
                 ______________________

                         2024-1341
                   ______________________
Case: 24-1340    Document: 26      Page: 2    Filed: 04/02/2024

 2                            MALONE v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Central District of California in No. 2:22-cv-00929-FMO-
 PVC, Judge Fernando M. Olguin.
                  ______________________

                       ON MOTION
                   ______________________

     Before DYK, PROST, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                         ORDER
     In each of the above-captioned appeals, Eric Malone
 moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Having con-
 sidered the parties’ informal briefs, we now dismiss these
 appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
     Mr. Malone filed an action in the United States District
 Court for the Central District of California against Toyota
 Motor Sales (“Toyota”) seeking confirmation of an arbitra-
 tion award related to a vehicle manufacture warranty.
 Toyota moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which the
 district court granted on December 19, 2022. Mr. Malone
 appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
 Ninth Circuit, which affirmed on October 19, 2023. This
 court has since received two notices of appeal from Mr.
 Malone: one seeking review of the district court’s dismissal,
 see Malone v. Toyota Motor Sales, Appeal No. 2024-1340,
 ECF No. 1, the other seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s
 decision, see Malone v. Toyota Motor Sales, Appeal No.
 2024-1341, ECF No. 1.
     We lack jurisdiction over Mr. Malone’s notice of appeal
 from the district court’s dismissal ruling because the ap-
 peal does not fall within the limited authority that Con-
 gress granted to this court to review decisions of federal
 district courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a). That jurisdiction
 extends only to cases arising under the patent laws, see 28
Case: 24-1340       Document: 26   Page: 3    Filed: 04/02/2024

 MALONE v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES                               3

 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); civil actions on review to the district
 court from the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
 see § 1295(a)(4)(C); or certain damages claims against the
 United States “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28
 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2).
     An appeal from the district court’s decision would be-
 long in the Ninth Circuit, but that court has already af-
 firmed the district court’s decision. Because it is plainly
 not in the interest of justice to transfer that appeal to the
 Ninth Circuit under the circumstances, we decline to do so
 under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. We therefore dismiss that appeal.
 We must also dismiss Mr. Malone’s appeal from the Ninth
 Circuit’s decision because Mr. Malone has not identified
 any source of authority, and we are aware of none, that
 grants us jurisdiction to review such a decision.
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The appeals are dismissed.
    (2) The motions to proceed in forma pauperis are
 granted. All other pending motions are denied.
     (3) The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                               FOR THE COURT

 April 2, 2024
      Date