Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The court also released two Rule 36 judgments and four nonprecedential orders. One of the nonprecedential orders denied a petition for a writ of mandamus in a case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. Another denied petitioners the right to appeal in a case decided by the Court of Federal Claims. Finally, the remaining two nonprecedential orders released today also dismissed appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders as well as links to the Rule 36 judgments and dismissals.
Tanser v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Pro se plaintiff-appellant Julie Tanser appeals from an order of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing her case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Tanser v. United States, No. 1:24-cv-1409, 2024 WL 5110181, at *1-2 (Ct. Fed. Cl. Nov. 13, 2024) (“Decision”). We affirm.
In re Samsung Electronics Co. (Nonprecedential Order)
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA) (collectively, Samsung) petition for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) to vacate its order denying Samsung’s motion to transfer and to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (NDCA). Mullen Industries LLC (Mullen) opposes. We deny the petition.
Lite Machines Corp. v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(2), petitioners seek permission to appeal an order of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting in part the United States’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The United States opposes. Petitioners respond.
Under § 1292(d)(2), the Court of Federal Claims may certify that an order that is not otherwise immediately appealable is one involving a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and for which an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Ultimately, this court must exercise its own discretion in deciding whether to grant permission to appeal such an interlocutory order. See In re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Pat. Litig., 903 F.2d 822, 822 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, we decline to grant permission to appeal under § 1292(d)(2).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition for permission to appeal is denied.
(2) ECF No. 3-1, ECF No. 11 and ECF No. 15 are unsealed.