Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Cash Flow Financial, LLC. v. Bishop, No. 12-1041 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2012)

Dismissed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 12-1041
Decided
January 13, 2012
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Order on Motion
Length
3 pages

Nove: This order is nonprecedential.

Gnited States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

CASH FLOW FINANCIAL, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

ve

DARLENE A. BISHOP, DOING BUSINESS AS

PARADIZE FUNDING NETWORK,

Defendant-Appellant,

AND

LINDA L. TORTORIELLO,

Defendant-Appellant,

AND

SUPERIOR CONTRACTING OF THE NE, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant,

AND

AISHA HALL, ALSO KNOWN AS AISHA ROCHESTER, ELSIE LEE SANCHEZ, DOING BUSINESS AS

L’C ENTERPRISES, JAMES HINKLE, DOING

BUSINESS AS AS 1 INTERNATIONAL, AND KURT

WALKER, —

Defendants.

2012-1041

2CASH FLOW FINACIAL v. BISHOP 2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in case no. 09-CV-0029, Judge Robert A. Junell.

ON MOTION

Before NEWMAN, LINN, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

Figure on page 1 of the opinion
Figure on page 2 of the opinion

ORDER

Appellee Cash Flow Financial, LLC moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Cash Flow Financial, LLC, filed suit against Darlene A. Bishop, Linda L. Tortoriello, and Superior Contracting of the NE, Inc. (as well as others) asserting claims arising under the Securities Exchange Act and the Securities Act, as well as alleging fraud and breach of contract. Following a bench trial, the district court found Appellants liable to Cash Flow Financial, LLC, for an amount in excess of $1.7 million. After the district court entered final judgment, Appellants, acting pro se, submitted a Notice of Appeal expressly seeking review by this court.

Recognizing that this appeal does not fall within the jurisdiction of this court, Cash Flow notes that the appeal has now been correctly docketed in the Fifth Circuit as Appeal No. 11-51007. Cash Flow further states that Appellants have no objection to the dismissal of this appeal. Thus, we need not transfer this appeal to the Fifth Circuit.

Figure on page 3 of the opinion

33 CASH FLOW FINANCIAL v. BISHOP

Accordingly, It Is ORDERED THAT: 1) The motion to dismiss is granted.

2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

For THE Courr JAN 13 2012

/sf Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

ec: Harry H. Wise, III, Esq.

Darlene A. Bishop FILED Liin da L. Tortorii ello 0S OUR AEALS FOR

e 825 ‘

JAN 13 2012 Issued As A Mandate: _ JAN 13 2012 . JANC HLOERRKBALY

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Cash Flow Financial, LLC. v. Bishop, No. 12-1041 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2012).

Record ID
CAFC-12-1041-20120113
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-12-1041-20120113

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.