The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
25-1943•Starlight Consulting Services, Starlight Entertainment Enterprises, Inc., Ricardo J.… v. Sunset Housing Solutions, L.p., Pacific Western Bank, State of C.a. Office of the…
25-1943Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSep 11, 2025
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
STARLIGHT CONSULTING SERVICES,
STARLIGHT ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES,
INC., RICARDO J. CALDERON LOPEZ, dba Star-
light Entertainment Enterprises, Inc., dba Starlight
Consulting Services,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
SUNSET HOUSING SOLUTIONS, L.P., PACIFIC
WESTERN BANK, STATE OF C.A. OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY OF STATE,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2025-1943
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:24-cv-06041-SB-JPR,
Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.
______________________
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
The court dismisses this appeal for lack of jurisdiction
On July 22, 2024, the district court dismissed Ricardo
J. Calderon Lopez’s complaint as frivolous, finding that his
Case: 25-1943 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 09/11/2025
-- 1 of 3 --
STARLIGHT CONSULTING SERVICES v. SUNSET HOUSING
SOLUTIONS, L.P.
2
complaint (regarding a dispute with his landlord) was re-
solved a decade ago in a different case. On October 2, 2024,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
dismissed Mr. Calderon Lopez’s appeal for failure to pros-
ecute. On July 12, 2025, Mr. Calderon Lopez filed a notice
of appeal directed to this court.
This court has repeatedly explained to Mr. Calderon
Lopez that it only has jurisdiction 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 Trademark Office, see id.
§ 1295(a)(4)(C); and cases involving certain damages
claims against the United States not exceeding $10,000 in
amount, see id. §§ 1295(a)(2), 1346(a)(2).1 And this court
has repeatedly explained to Mr. Calderon Lopez that no
court of appeals has authority to review untimely district
court appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107; Fed. R. App. P. 4;
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).2
1 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).
2 See San Mateo County Sheriff’s Off. v. Calderon
Lopez, No. 2024-2079, ECF No. 5 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2024);
SSA v. Calderon Lopez, No. 2024-1970, ECF No. 4 (Fed.
Cir. July 25, 2024); Calderon Lopez v. Jackson, No. 2024-
2046, ECF No. 5 (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2024); Calderon Lopez
v. Sunset Hous. Sols., L.P., No. 2024-1989, ECF No. 6 (Fed.
Cir. July 25, 2024); Palo Alto Police Dep’t v. Calderon
Lopez, No. 2024-1999, ECF No. 3 (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2024);
Calderon Lopez v. Kausner, No. 2024-2011, ECF No. 6 (Fed.
Cir. July 24, 2024); Calderon Lopez v. Silberman, No. 2024-
Case: 25-1943 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 09/11/2025
-- 2 of 3 --
STARLIGHT CONSULTING SERVICES v. SUNSET HOUSING
SOLUTIONS, L.P.
3
Here, Mr. Calderon Lopez’s appeal again falls outside
of this court’s limited subject matter jurisdiction and is un-
timely. Thus, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdic-
tion. 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 that is either untimely or in-
volves a case that does not plausibly fall within this court’s
subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
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
2000, ECF No. 2 (Fed. Cir. July 23, 2024); Calderon Lopez
v. O’Malley, No. 2024-1963, ECF No. 3 (Fed. Cir.
July 23, 2024); Calderon Lopez v. Los Angeles Cnty. Metro.
Transp. Auth., No. 2024-1998, ECF No. 4 (Fed. Cir. July
23, 2024); Calderon Lopez v. State of Cal., No. 2024-2133,
ECF No. 3 (Aug. 22, 2024).
Case: 25-1943 Document: 9 Page: 3 Filed: 09/11/2025
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.