Starlight Entertainment Enterprises, Inc. v. United States District Court for the Central District of California

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
STARLIGHT ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES,
INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
RICARDO J. CALDERON LOPEZ, dba Starlight
Consulting Services,
Plaintiff
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1609
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:25-cv-00580-CBM-
JPR, Senior Judge Consuelo Bland Marshall.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before LOURIE, CHEN, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Case: 26-1609 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 05/06/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

STARLIGHT ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2
Ricardo J. Calderon Lopez filed this action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of Cal-
ifornia, seeking a refund of a filing fee related to one of his
earlier landlord-tenant actions.1 After the district court
dismissed the complaint, Mr. Calderon Lopez appealed to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
which, on May 28, 2025, dismissed the appeal for failure to
pay the docketing fee. On March 18, 2026, Mr. Calderon
Lopez filed this appeal, indicating his intent to appeal the
“05/28/2025” decision of the Ninth Circuit. He moves for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The United States op-
poses and moves to dismiss.
This court has repeatedly explained to Mr. Calderon
Lopez that it lacks jurisdiction over decisions of the Ninth
Circuit;2 that our limited authority to review district court
decisions does not extend to the landlord-tenant disputes
and other actions he has previously attempted to appeal to
this court;3 and that no court of appeals has jurisdiction to
1 Ricardo J. Calderon Lopez, et al., v. Sunset Hous-
ing Solutions L.P., No. 2:13-cv-09025-ODW-AGR, dis-
missed on appeal, 2024 WL 3530199 (Fed. Cir. July 25,
2024).
2 See, e.g., San Mateo Cnty. Sheriff’s Off. v. Calderon
Lopez, No. 2024-2079, ECF No. 5 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2024)
(“To the extent Mr. Calderon Lopez seeks review of a deci-
sion of the Ninth Circuit, we lack jurisdiction.” (citing
§ 1295)); SSA v. Calderon Lopez, No. 2024-1970, ECF No.
4 (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2024) (same); Calderon Lopez v. Los
Angeles Cnty. Metro. Transp. Auth., No. 2024-1998, ECF
No. 4 (Fed. Cir. July 23, 2024) (same).
3 See, e.g., Starlight Consulting Services v. Sunset
Housing Solutions, L.P., No. 2025-1943, ECF No. 9 (Fed.
Cir. Sept. 11, 2025); Calderon Lopez v. Gumushyan,
Case: 26-1609 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 05/06/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

STARLIGHT ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
review an appeal from a district court filed outside the 30-
day jurisdictional deadline.4 We also cautioned him that
“he may be sanctioned . . . if he files another notice of ap-
peal 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.” Starlight Consulting Servs. v.
Sunset Hous. Sols., L.P., Appeal No. 2025-1943, ECF No. 9
(Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2025).5
No. 2025-1765, ECF No. 10 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2025); Calde-
ron 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).
4 See San Mateo County Sheriff’s Off., No. 2024-
2079, ECF No. 5 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2024); SSA, 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. 2024-2000, 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,
No. 2024-1998, ECF No. 4 (Fed. Cir. July 23, 2024); Calde-
ron Lopez v. State of Cal., No. 2024-2133, ECF No. 3 (Fed.
Cir. Aug. 22, 2024).
5 See Calderon Lopez v. Viramontes, No. 2025-1983,
ECF No. 3 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2025) (same); Calderon
Lopez v. United States, No. 2025-1996, ECF No. 5 (Fed. Cir.
Sept. 30, 2025) (same).
Case: 26-1609 Document: 6 Page: 3 Filed: 05/06/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

STARLIGHT ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
Mr. Calderon Lopez disregarded our warning in filing
this appeal, one that is clearly untimely and also outside of
this court’s limited subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, we
dismiss. Further, given the court’s prior warnings, we di-
rect Mr. Calderon Lopez to show cause why he should not
be sanctioned. Such sanctions could include a monetary
fine, an order restricting Mr. Calderon Lopez’s ability to
file documents with this court until the sanction is paid,
and/or an order enjoining him from filing any notice of ap-
peal seeking review by this court without attaching to the
notice of appeal a motion for leave to file, stating the
grounds for why he believes that the appeal is timely and
why he believes this court has subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The United States’s motion is granted to the extent
that the appeal is dismissed.
(2) All other pending motions are denied.
(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
(4) Within 21 days from the date of entry of this order,
Mr. Calderon Lopez is directed to show cause why he
should not be sanctioned, including being subjected to an
anti-filing injunction or the other potential sanctions as de-
scribed in this order. The United States also may respond
within that time.
May 6, 2026
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 26-1609 Document: 6 Page: 4 Filed: 05/06/2026

-- 4 of 4 --