Court Opinion

ID: 9370681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 16:01:11.003035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:22.392004
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1060    Document: 12     Page: 1    Filed: 02/14/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                   MARCO CABEZAS,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

                  FLINT GROUP, LLC,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2023-1060
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Central District of California in No. 5:22-cv-01265-FLA-
 KK, Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha.
                  ______________________

    Before TARANTO, MAYER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
 TARANTO, Circuit Judge.
                         ORDER
     In response to this court’s December 5, 2022, order to
 show cause, Flint Group, LLC urges dismissal of this ap-
 peal. Marco Cabezas has not responded.
     Mr. Cabezas brought this suit against Flint Group as-
 serting violations of various employment laws. The United
 States District Court for the Central District of California
 granted Flint Group’s motion to dismiss the complaint
 without prejudice in an order dated August 18, 2022. ECF
Case: 23-1060    Document: 12      Page: 2     Filed: 02/14/2023

 2                                CABEZAS   v. FLINT GROUP, LLC

 No. 1-2 at 6–7. The district court received Mr. Cabezas’s
 notice of appeal on October 17, 2022.
      Mr. Cabezas’s appeal does not fall within the limited
 authority that Congress granted to this court to review de-
 cisions of federal district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a).
 That jurisdiction extends only to cases arising under the
 patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); civil actions on re-
 view 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).
 This case does not fall into any of those categories.
      While Flint Group urges dismissal, under the circum-
 stances, we deem it the better course to transfer the case
 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the United States Court of
 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which may consider, for ex-
 ample, timeliness of the appeal in light of the apparent lack
 of entry of a separate judgment following the district
 court’s August 18, 2022, dismissal order. See Fed. R. App.
 P. 4(a)(1)(A) & (7)(A)(ii) (together setting 180-day deadline
 to file notice of appeal from a final decision when no sepa-
 rate document required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a) is en-
 tered).
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    The appeal and all its filings are transferred to the
 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pur-
 suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
                                    FOR THE COURT

 February 14, 2023                  /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
       Date                         Peter R. Marksteiner
                                    Clerk of Court