Gaylon Teslaa, et al. v. Vereuck Properties LLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 5, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02685
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GAYLON TESLAA, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-2685-DC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 VEREUCK PROPERTIES LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 7, 2025, defendant County of Mono filed a motion to dismiss this case for 18 failure to state a claim. ECF No. 10. To date, plaintiffs have not responded to defendant’s 19 motion. 20 Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or 21 statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. 22 E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet 23 certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to 24 comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon 25 Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 26 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a 27 duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See 28 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 1 The court will give plaintiffs the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be 2 | imposed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. 3 | Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and 4 | will result in dismissal of this action. 5 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 6 1. The December 18, 2025 hearing on defendant’s motion is continued to January 15, 7 | 2026, at 10:00 a.m. 8 2. By no later than December 19, 2025, plaintiffs shall file an opposition or statement of 9 | non-opposition to defendant’s motion. 10 3. Plaintiffs shall show cause, by no later than December 19, 2025, why sanctions should 11 | not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 12 | defendant’s motion. 13 4. Defendant County of Mono may file a reply to plaintiffs’ opposition, if any, no later 14 | than January 8, 2026. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ December 5, 2025 18 JEREMY D. PETERSON 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28