Ricardo J. Calderon Lopez, dba Starlight Consulting Services, dba Starlight… v. Doe Viramontes, Doe Guzman, Doe Magamus, Doe Shin, Doe Dispatcher No. 1, Doe…

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RICARDO J. CALDERON LOPEZ, dba Starlight
Consulting Services, dba Starlight Entertainment
Enterprises, Inc., dba Starlight Music Management,
Inc.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
DOE VIRAMONTES, DOE GUZMAN, DOE
MAGAMUS, DOE SHIN, DOE DISPATCHER NO. 1,
DOE DISPATCHER NO. 2, LOS ANGELES POLICE
DEPARTMENT, L.A. DEPT. OF
TRANSPORTATION, CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2025-1983
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:24-cv-10889-DMG-
SHK, Judge Dolly M. Gee.
______________________
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
On February 24, 2025, the district court dismissed Ri-
cardo J. Calderon Lopez’s claims—none involving pa-
tents—against private and state defendants without
Case: 25-1983 Document: 3 Page: 1 Filed: 09/11/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

LOPEZ v. VIRAMONTES 2
prejudice for failure to prosecute. On March 24, 2025, Mr.
Calderon Lopez filed a document with that court citing, in-
ter alia, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), and appearing to seek recon-
sideration.1 On July 28, 2025, Mr. Calderon Lopez filed a
notice of appeal directed to this court despite this court
having repeatedly explained to him that it only has juris-
diction to review district court 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 Trade-
mark Office, see id. § 1295(a)(4)(C); and cases involving cer-
tain damages claims against the United States not
exceeding $10,000 in amount, see id.
§§ 1295(a)(2), 1346(a)(2).2 His case clearly does not fall
within any of those categories, and it would not be in the
interest of justice to transfer.
Mr. Calderon Lopez is specifically warned that he may
be sanctioned, including the imposition of monetary and
non-monetary penalties, if he files another notice of appeal
directed to this court in a case that does not plausibly fall
within this court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
1 It appears the district court ordered that document
struck on August 1, 2025.
2 See Calderon Lopez v. Gumushyan, No. 2025-1765,
ECF No. 10 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2025); Calderon Lopez v. Off.
of the Sec’y of State, No. 2024-1964, ECF No. 4 (Fed. Cir.
July 23, 2024); Calderon Lopez v. O’Malley, No. 2025-1698,
ECF No. 22 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2024); In re Calderon Lopez,
No. 2023-133, ECF No. 23 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2023).
Case: 25-1983 Document: 3 Page: 2 Filed: 09/11/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

LOPEZ v. VIRAMONTES 3
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) All pending motions are denied.
(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
September 11, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-1983 Document: 3 Page: 3 Filed: 09/11/2025

-- 3 of 3 --