CHLOE v. DENT , No. 24-1093 (Fed. Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 24-1093 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 02/05/2024 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ KENNETH ANTOINE CHLOE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. DAVID DENT, Defendant GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2024-1093 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in No. 1:20-cv-03090-EGS, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. ______________________ Before LOURIE, PROST, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Kenneth Antoine Chloe appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia arising out of a private-employment dispute. In response to this court’s December 6, 2023, order to show Case: 24-1093 Document: 12 2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/05/2024 CHLOE v. DENT cause, the appellee urges dismissal. Mr. Chloe urges that this court retain jurisdiction over the case. Our jurisdiction to review decisions of federal district courts extends only to cases arising under 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 § 1295(a)(4)(C); or certain damages claims against the United States “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1). This case is outside of that limited subject matter jurisdiction. We may transfer to another court, if it is in the interest of justice, where “the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Here, the court concludes that transfer to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The appeal and all its filings are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. FOR THE COURT February 5, 2024 Date
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
