Plaintiffs Ernest L. Jarrett and his firm sued a former client in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The lawsuit alleged various state law claims, including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, deprivation of attorney fees, conspiracy, breach of implied contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed the complaint, and the plaintiffs filed an appeal directly with the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit subsequently directed the parties to explain why the case should not be dismissed or transferred for lack of jurisdiction, but no party responded.
The Federal Circuit's jurisdiction is statutorily limited. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1), the court generally reviews cases involving patent laws. It also has jurisdiction over civil actions from the Patent and Trademark Office and certain damages claims against the United States not exceeding $10,000. The court found that this case involved a breach of contract and other state law claims unrelated to patent laws or claims against the United States. Therefore, the case did not fall within the Federal Circuit's jurisdictional grant. The court concluded that transfer was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 41, 1291, 1294, and 1631 to ensure the case is heard in the correct circuit.
The appeal and all case filings are now pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Federal Circuit has no further role in the case. The parties must proceed with their appeal in the Sixth Circuit, which has proper jurisdiction over the state law claims and the geographic location of the district court.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download