Eric Malone v. Toyota Motor Sales

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ERIC MALONE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1340
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:22-cv-00929-FMO-
PVC, Judge Fernando M. Olguin.
-------------------------------------------------
ERIC MALONE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1341
______________________
Case: 24-1340 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 04/02/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

MALONE v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES 2
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:22-cv-00929-FMO-
PVC, Judge Fernando M. Olguin.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before D YK , PROST, and WALLACH , Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM.
O R D E R
In each of the above-captioned appeals, Eric Malone
moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Having con-
sidered the parties’ informal briefs, we now dismiss these
appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
Mr. Malone filed an action in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California against Toyota
Motor Sales (“Toyota”) seeking confirmation of an arbitra-
tion award related to a vehicle manufacture warranty.
Toyota moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which the
district court granted on December 19, 2022. Mr. Malone
appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, which affirmed on October 19, 2023. This
court has since received two notices of appeal from Mr.
Malone: one seeking review of the district court’s dismissal,
see Malone v. Toyota Motor Sales, Appeal No. 2024-1340,
ECF No. 1, the other seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s
decision, see Malone v. Toyota Motor Sales, Appeal No.
2024-1341, ECF No. 1.
We lack jurisdiction over Mr. Malone’s notice of appeal
from the district court’s dismissal ruling because the ap-
peal does not fall within the limited authority that Con-
gress granted to this court to review decisions of federal
district courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a). That jurisdiction
extends only to cases arising under the patent laws, see 28
Case: 24-1340 Document: 26 Page: 2 Filed: 04/02/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

MALONE v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES 3
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); or 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).
An appeal from the district court’s decision would be-
long in the Ninth Circuit, but that court has already af-
firmed the district court’s decision. Because it is plainly
not in the interest of justice to transfer that appeal to the
Ninth Circuit under the circumstances, we decline to do so
under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. We therefore dismiss that appeal.
We must also dismiss Mr. Malone’s appeal from the Ninth
Circuit’s decision because Mr. Malone has not identified
any source of authority, and we are aware of none, that
grants us jurisdiction to review such a decision.
Accordingly,
IT IS O RDERED THAT:
(1) The appeals are dismissed.
(2) The motions to proceed in forma pauperis are
granted. All other pending motions are denied.
(3) The parties shall bear their own costs.
April 2, 2024
Date
FOR THE C OURT
Case: 24-1340 Document: 26 Page: 3 Filed: 04/02/2024

-- 3 of 3 --