Eric Malone v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ERIC MALONE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1899
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-01910-EDK, Chief Judge Elaine Kaplan.
______________________
Decided: September 10, 2024
______________________
ERIC MALONE, Palm Desert, CA, pro se.
BRENDAN D AVID J ORDAN, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY ,
F RANKLIN E. WHITE, J R.
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, L INN and P ROST , Circuit
Judges.
Case: 23-1899 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 09/10/2024

-- 1 of 4 --

MALONE v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Eric Malone appeals a judgment of the United States
Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed
below, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On February 9, 2022, Mr. Malone filed a complaint in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California against Toyota Motor Sales (Toyota) seeking en-
forcement of an alleged arbitration award. The district
court dismissed the complaint without prejudice due to
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Malone v. Toyota Motor
Sales, No. CV220929FMOPVCX, 2022 WL 20834631 (C.D.
Cal. Dec. 19, 2022). The United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Malone v. Sales, No. 22-56201,
2023 WL 6889889 (9th Cir. Oct. 19, 2023). Mr. Malone ap-
pealed the district court and the Ninth Circuit’s decisions
to us, and we dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Malone v.
Toyota Motor Sales, No. 2024-1340, 2024 WL 1403641
(Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2024).
On December 27, 2022, Mr. Malone filed a complaint in
the Court of Federal Claims naming the United States as
the defendant and sought enforcement of the alleged arbi-
tration award against Toyota. The government filed a mo-
tion to dismiss, which the Court of Federal Claims granted.
The Court of Federal Claims concluded Mr. Malone did not
raise a claim within its jurisdiction. Appx. 5–7.1
Mr. Malone timely appeals. We have jurisdiction un-
der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
1 “Appx.” refers to the appendix filed by Mr. Malone,
ECF No. 32.
Case: 23-1899 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 09/10/2024

-- 2 of 4 --

MALONE v. US 3
D ISCUSSION
The Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims ju-
risdiction over actions “founded either upon the Constitu-
tion, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an
executive department, or upon any express or implied con-
tract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliqui-
dated damages in cases not sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a)(1). The jurisdiction of the Court of Federal
Claims under the Tucker Act is “limited to actual, pres-
ently due money damages from the United States.” United
States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976). We review the
dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdic-
tion de novo. Res. Conservation Grp., LLC v. United States,
597 F.3d 1238, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
The Court of Federal Claims properly concluded that it
did not have jurisdiction over Mr. Malone’s claim, which is
a request for enforcement of an alleged arbitration agree-
ment against Toyota, not a claim for money damages
against the United States under the Tucker Act. See
United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (“[The
Court of Federal Claims’] jurisdiction is confined to the ren-
dition of money judgments in suits brought for that relief
against the United States, and if the relief sought is
against others than the United States the suit as to them
must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the court.”
(internal citations omitted)).
Mr. Malone also argues he has not been adequately
represented by the United States in a case pending in the
Ninth Circuit. Appellant’s Informal Br. at 2. The Court of
Federal Claims has no jurisdiction over such a claim.
Moreover, the United States has never represented Mr.
Malone, who is a pro se plaintiff-appellant in this appeal
and in the Ninth Circuit case.
Case: 23-1899 Document: 39 Page: 3 Filed: 09/10/2024

-- 3 of 4 --

MALONE v. US 4
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Malone’s remaining argu-
ments and find them without merit. For the reasons dis-
cussed above, the Court of Federal Claims properly
dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 23-1899 Document: 39 Page: 4 Filed: 09/10/2024

-- 4 of 4 --