Case: 25-1943 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 09/11/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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.

ORDER 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: 2 Filed: 09/11/2025

2 STARLIGHT CONSULTING SERVICES v. SUNSET HOUSING SOLUTIONS, L.P.

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: 3 Filed: 09/11/2025

STARLIGHT CONSULTING SERVICES v. SUNSET HOUSING 3 SOLUTIONS, L.P.

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.

FOR THE COURT

September 11, 2025 Date

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).