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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Calderon Lopez v. O'Malley, No. 24-1698 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2024)

Dismissed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 24-1698
Decided
June 25, 2024
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Order on Motion
Length
3 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit

RICARDO JOSE CALDERON LOPEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MARTIN J. O’MALLEY, Commissioner of the Social

Security Administration,

Defendant-Appellee

2024-1698

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in No. 2:23-cv-08244-DMGSHK, Judge Dolly M. Gee.

ON MOTION

Before STOLL, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

In response to this court’s April 24, 2024 show cause order, Ricardo Jose Calderon Lopez argues that this court has jurisdiction while the Commissioner of the Social2 Security Administration urges dismissal. Mr. Calderon Lopez also moves for sanctions.

On January 3, 2024, the district court dismissed Mr. Calderon Lopez’s suit seeking review of a decision of the Commissioner under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On January 9, 2024, Mr. Calderon Lopez filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and, on April 9, 2024, he filed a notice of appeal directed to this court.

Our jurisdiction to review district court decisions is generally limited to cases involving the patent laws, see 28 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); and cases involving 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). Mr. Calderon Lopez’s case, relating to review of the Commissioner’s decision, does not fall within that jurisdiction. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).1 We conclude that dismissal, rather than transfer, is appropriate at least because Mr. Calderon Lopez has already appealed the same judgment to the Ninth Circuit. 28 U.S.C. §§ 41, 1291, 1294.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) All pending motions are denied.

3(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

Figure on page 3 of the opinion

June 25, 2024 Date

Footnotes

  1. 1 To the extent Mr. Calderon Lopez attempts to raise other issues that were not before the district court, such issues are not properly before this court.

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

Calderon Lopez v. O'Malley, No. 24-1698 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2024).

Record ID
CAFC-24-1698-20240625
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-24-1698-20240625

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.