`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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: 2 Filed: 04/02/2024
`
`2
`
`
`
`MALONE v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES
`
`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 DYK, PROST, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
`PER CURIAM.
`
`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: 3 Filed: 04/02/2024
`
`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 ORDERED 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.
`FOR THE COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`April 2, 2024
` Date
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
