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

E.D. California

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

District Court, E.D. California·Decided December 5, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-02685·Unknown

Opinion

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

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

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

Gaylon Teslaa, et al. v. Vereuck Properties LLC, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Gaylon Teslaa, et al. v. Vereuck Properties LLC, et al. (Gaylon Teslaa, et al. v. Vereuck Properties LLC, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related