The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
26-1225•Ernest L. Jarrett, Ernest L. Jarrett, P.c. v. Dominic Archibald
26-1225Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitMar 19, 2026
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ERNEST L. JARRETT, ERNEST L. JARRETT, P.C.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
DOMINIC ARCHIBALD,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1225
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan in No. 2:24-cv-13223-BRM-
DRG.
______________________
Before DYK, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Appellants Ernest L. Jarrett and Ernest L. Jarrett,
P.C. brought suit in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan against a former client
from a wrongful death suit alleging breach of contract, un-
just enrichment, deprivation of attorney fees, conspiracy,
breach of implied contract, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress. Appellants then filed an appeal di-
rected to this court from the district court’s final judgment
Case: 26-1225 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 03/19/2026
-- 1 of 2 --
JARRETT v. ARCHIBALD 2
dismissing the complaint. On January 22, 2026, this court
directed the parties to show cause why this case should not
be dismissed or transferred for lack of jurisdiction. No
party has responded.
This court’s jurisdiction to review district court cases is
generally limited to 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,” id. § 1346(a)(2), see id. § 1295(a)(2). This case
does not fall within that jurisdiction. We conclude that
transfer of the appeal to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit is appropriate under the circum-
stances. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 41, 1291, 1294, 1631.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
This appeal and all case filings are transferred to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
March 19, 2026
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 26-1225 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 03/19/2026
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.