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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Rogue Riverkeeper v. Bean, No. 12-1107 (Fed. Cir. July 20, 2012)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 12-1107
Decided
July 20, 2012
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Order on Motion
Length
3 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. Gnited States Court of Appeals

for the federal Circuit

ROGUE RIVERKEEPER, A PROJECT OF THE

KLAMATH SISKTYOU WILDLANDS CENTER,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

Vv.

DONALD BEAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

2012-1107

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon in Case No. 11-CV-3013, Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke.

ON MOTION

Before LOURIE, SCHALL, and Dyk, Circuit Judges.

Figure on page 1 of the opinion

ORDER

Rogue Riverkeeper moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Donald Bean opposes. Rogue Riverkeeper supplements its motion, and Bean opposes2 ROGUE RIVERKEEPER v. BEAN 2

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

the supplementation. Bean further moves to reform the caption.

Rogue Riverkeeper argues that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the order challenged is not final or appealable. Bean appeals the district court’s order denying his request to transfer the case to the United States Court of Federal Claims. Under 28 U.S.C, § 1292(d)(4)(A), this court has jurisdiction of an appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court “granting or denying, in whole or in part, a motion to transfer an action to the United States Court of Federal Claims.”

_ Summary afÏrmance of a case “is appropriate, inter alia, when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We find that summary afÏrmance is appropriate here. Bean appeals the district court’s denial of transfer to the Court of Federal Claims, but the dispute below presents no issue over which the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction.

The complaint below includes citizens’ enforcement claims under the Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. These claims do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. The district court did not err in denying transfer to the Court of Federal Claims.

Accordingly, It Is ORDERED THAT:

(1) The district court’s denial of transfer to the Court of Federal Claims is summarily afÏrmed.

(2) Bach side shall bear its own costs. (8) All pending motions are moot.

Figure on page 3 of the opinion

3ROGUE RIVERKEEPER v. BEAN

For THE Court

JUL 26 2012

!s/ Jan Horbaly Date dan Horbaly

Clerk

ce: Donald Bean D

RPPEALS FOR TT ERAL CIRCUIT US O

Ralph O. Bloemers, Esq.

s24 JUL 20 2012

JAN HORBALY

CLERK

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

Rogue Riverkeeper v. Bean, No. 12-1107 (Fed. Cir. July 20, 2012).

Record ID
CAFC-12-1107-20120720
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-12-1107-20120720

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.