Lopez v. Viramontes

Case: 25-1983 Document: 3 Page: 1 Filed: 09/11/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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.

ORDER

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: 2 Filed: 09/11/2025 2 LOPEZ v. VIRAMONTES 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: 3 Filed: 09/11/2025 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.

FOR THE COURT September 11, 2025

Date