Ricky Emery Kamdem-Ouaffo, trading as Kamdem Group v. NATURASOURCE INTERNATIONAL, LLC, LASZLO POKORNY, individual

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RICKY EMERY KAMDEM-OUAFFO, trading as
Kamdem Group,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
NATURASOURCE INTERNATIONAL, LLC, LASZLO
POKORNY, individual and in his capacity with
NaturaSource International, LLC, HILL’S PET
NUTRITION, INC., COLGATE-PALMOLIVE
COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees
JOHN DOES 1-10, ABC CORP. (1-10),
Defendants
______________________
2026-1708
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey in No. 3:15-cv-06290-MAS-JBD,
Judge Michael A. Shipp.
-------------------------------------------------
RICKY KAMDEM-OUAFFO, trading as Kamdem
Group,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
Case: 26-1708 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 07/27/2026

-- 1 of 6 --

KAMDEM - OUAFFO v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE CO. 2
COLGATE PALMOLIVE CO., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees
MS. KIM, et al.,
Defendants
______________________
2026-1726
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey in No. 2:22-cv-06623-CCC-JBC,
Judge Claire C. Cecchi.
-------------------------------------------------
RICKY KAMDEM-OUAFFO, trading as Kamdem
Group,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
COLGATE PALMOLIVE CO., HILL’S PET
NUTRITION INC, LASZLO POKORNY,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2026-1758
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey in No. 2:15-cv-07902-CCC-JBC,
Judge Claire C. Cecchi.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Case: 26-1708 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 07/27/2026

-- 2 of 6 --

KAMDEM - OUAFFO v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE CO. 3
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Having considered the parties’ responses to this court’s
show-cause orders and Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo’s motion for
summary disposition, we dismiss these appeals.
I.
In 2013, Mr. Kamdem-Ouaffo filed a state-court case
alleging misappropriation of proprietary pet food flavoring
information. After the parties briefed cross-motions for
summary judgment, Mr. Kamdem-Ouaffo, in 2015, re-
moved the case to federal district court. Meanwhile, the
state court granted summary judgment in favor of defend-
ants. The district court ultimately remanded the case to
state court, concluding that the complaint did not support
federal subject matter jurisdiction and that the removal
was untimely.1 Following remand, Mr. Kamdem-Ouaffo
did not appeal the state court judgment through the state
court system.2 Instead, he has spent the past decade seek-
ing relief in federal court, filing (1) complaints that were
dismissed on res judicata, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
1 The district court also awarded defendants their
attorney fees, which the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit affirmed. See Kamden-Ouaffo v. Natu-
raSource Int’l, Inc., 693 F. App’x 172 (3d Cir. 2017). The
district court and Third Circuit’s dockets and captions ap-
pear to misspell Mr. Kamdem-Ouaffo’s name in this case.
2 Mr. Kamdem-Ouaffo does not appear to have
sought any relief in state court until 2022 when he moved
the trial court to vacate the judgment, which was denied.
Case: 26-1708 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 07/27/2026

-- 3 of 6 --

KAMDEM - OUAFFO v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE CO. 4
and other grounds and (2) numerous motions for reconsid-
eration in his federal cases.3
In Appeal No. 2026-1708, Mr. Kamdem-Ouaffo seeks
our review of the district court’s orders that denied, inter
alia, his recent motion for reconsideration of the 2015 re-
mand decision and his motion to recuse. And in Appeal
Nos. 2026-1726 and 2026-1758, he seeks review of the dis-
trict court’s order that denied, inter alia, his recent motions
seeking relief from the judgments dismissing his cases and
his fourth motion to amend the complaint. In part because
these cases were previously appealed to the Third Circuit,
see NaturaSource, 693 F. App’x 172; Colgate Palmolive I,
2022 WL 382032; Colgate Palmolive II, 2024 WL 3250938,
we directed the parties to show cause whether these ap-
peals should be transferred or dismissed. Mr. Kamdem-
Ouaffo contends we have jurisdiction. Appellees in 2026-
1726 respond that we lack jurisdiction.
II.
We need not resolve any dispute about whether this
court or the Third Circuit has subject matter jurisdiction
over these appeals. Regardless, dismissal is appropriate
here.
Mr. Kamdem-Ouaffo’s collateral challenges to the mer-
its of the remand decision are barred by 28 U.S.C.
3 See, e.g., Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Colgate Palmolive Co.,
No. 23-2982, 2024 WL 3250938 (3d Cir. July 1, 2024) (“Col-
gate Palmolive II”) (affirming dismissal); Kamdem-Ouaffo
v. Colgate Palmolive Co., No. 21-1198, 2022 WL 382032 (3d
Cir. Feb. 8, 2022) (Colgate Palmolive I) (affirming dismis-
sal); Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Leblon, 673 F. App’x 223 (3d Cir.
2016) (affirming dismissal); Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Colgate
Palmolive Co., No. 15-cv-7902, 2026 WL 884875, at *2–3 &
n.5 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2026) (detailing successive motions for
reconsideration).
Case: 26-1708 Document: 10 Page: 4 Filed: 07/27/2026

-- 4 of 6 --

KAMDEM - OUAFFO v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE CO. 5
§ 1447(d), which provides that “[a]n order remanding a
case to the State court from which it was removed is not
reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” See Things Remem-
bered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127–28 (1995) (“As
long as a district court’s remand is based on a timely raised
defect in removal procedure or on lack of subject-matter ju-
risdiction . . . a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to enter-
tain an appeal of the remand order under § 1447(d).”); see
also Agostini v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 729 F.3d 350, 353 (3d
Cir. 2013) (“[I]f we do not have jurisdiction to review a re-
mand order itself, we cannot have jurisdiction to review a
motion to reconsider a remand order.”); NaturaSource, 693
F. App’x at 173 (“As Kamdem-Ouaffo acknowledges, be-
cause the District Court remanded the matter to state
court based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, this
Court lacks jurisdiction to review the District Court’s re-
mand order.”).
Any remaining challenge is frivolous. Mr. Kamdem-
Ouaffo’s motion for recusal was based on his disagreement
with the district court’s prior rulings. But, as the Third
Circuit has already explained to him, such arguments “pro-
vide[] no colorable basis for recusal.” Colgate Palmolive I,
2022 WL 382032, at *2. Mr. Kamdem-Ouaffo’s most recent
attempts to revive the dismissed actions are likewise en-
tirely without merit. His challenges are predicated on the
argument that the state court judgment is void. But the
Third Circuit has already affirmed dismissal of the actions,
finding he forfeited that argument, see id. at *2 n.4, and
Mr. Kamdem-Ouaffo has demonstrated no non-frivolous
basis for relief. Because he has not demonstrated any non-
frivolous basis for appellate jurisdiction or raised any non-
frivolous challenge to the district court’s orders, we dis-
miss.
Accordingly,
Case: 26-1708 Document: 10 Page: 5 Filed: 07/27/2026

-- 5 of 6 --

KAMDEM - OUAFFO v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE CO. 6
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The appeals are dismissed.
(2) All pending motions are denied.
(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
July 27, 2026
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 26-1708 Document: 10 Page: 6 Filed: 07/27/2026

-- 6 of 6 --