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 14 VEREUCK PROPERTIES LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs brought their complaint in the Southern District of New York, and, on 18 September 3, 2025, it was transferred to this district. ECF No. 4. Pending are plaintiffs’ motion 19 for removal and sanctions, ECF No. 7, and the motion to dismiss, ECF No. 10, filed by defendant 20 County of Mono (“defendant”).1 After review of the pleadings, I will grant defendant’s motion 21 and dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. Additionally, I will necessarily deny plaintiffs’ 22 motion for removal and sanctions. Finally, plaintiff will be ordered to show cause why all 23 defendants, with the exception of County of Mono, should not be dismissed for failure to timely 24 serve them. 25 26 27 1 Other defendants are named in the complaint but, as yet, only the County of Mono has 28 been served and has made an appearance. 1 Motion to Dismiss 2 I. Legal Standards 3 A complaint may be dismissed under that rule for “failure to state a claim upon which 4 relief may be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to 5 state a claim, a plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 6 face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has “facial plausibility 7 when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference 8 that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 9 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability 10 requirement,” but it requires more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. 11 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 12 For purposes of dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the court generally considers only 13 allegations contained in the pleadings, exhibits attached to the complaint, and matters properly 14 subject to judicial notice, and construes all well-pleaded material factual allegations in the light 15 most favorable to the nonmoving party. Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 710 16 F.3d 946, 956 (9th Cir. 2013); Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012). 17 Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be based on either: (1) lack of a cognizable legal 18 theory, or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. Chubb Custom Ins. Co., 710 F.3d 19 at 956. Dismissal also is appropriate if the complaint alleges a fact that necessarily defeats the 20 claim. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 1984). 21 II. Analysis 22 Defendant raises two arguments in its motion to dismiss, both of which have merit. First, 23 it argues that the complaint fails to identify specific instances of tortious or unconstitutional 24 activity allegedly perpetrated by defendant. Second, defendant argues that multiple plaintiffs 25 appear to be business entities that have failed to sufficiently identify themselves to allow for pro 26 per representation. Plaintiffs’ complaint shall be dismissed with leave to amend so that they may 27 remedy these deficiencies, if they can. 28 1 A. Failure to Identify Specific Instances of Wrongful Conduct 2 Defendant correctly argues that the complaint fails to satisfy federal pleading standards. 3 Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must allege facts sufficient to 4 provide both “fair notice” to a defendant of the particular claim being asserted and “the grounds 5 upon which [that claim] rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 n.3 (2007) 6 (citation omitted). Plaintiffs have failed to do that here. As defendant points out, the complaint 7 alleges that it has engaged in “an ongoing pattern of politically motivated retaliation, fraudulent 8 legal proceedings, and the refusal and neglect to uphold constitutional duties and protections 9 under color of state law.” ECF No. 1 at 1-2. Plaintiffs assert thirty-five causes of action in 10 conjunction with these formulaic allegations but never explain how each cause of action attaches. 11 It is well settled that “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief 12 requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 13 action will not do . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 14 B. Pro Se Litigation by Business Entities 15 The complaint, despite purporting to be filed on behalf of numerous plaintiffs, including a 16 “foreign nation” and the “Better Medicine Naturally Foundation,” is signed only by an individual 17 named Eldad-Zebulun Yirmeyah-Rapha. ECF No. 1 at 12. This individual does not indicate that 18 he is an attorney licensed in this district and, thus, may represent only himself. See Simon v. 19 Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiffs are advised that all claimants 20 must sign any amended complaint.2 21 Motion for Sanctions 22 Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions is denied. Therein, they request that I sanction and 23 enforce jurisdiction on the Mono County Superior Court. ECF No. 7 at 1-2. They claim that the 24 state superior court wrongfully refused a “notice of removal” that they attempted to file therein. 25 Id. at 2. This motion is denied. There is no indication that any action was removed to this court 26 from state court. As noted above, plaintiffs filed this case in New York federal court, and it was 27 2 I note that plaintiffs have filed an “addendum” to the complaint that also is only signed 28 by Eldad-Zebulun Yirmeyah-Rapha. 1 transferred to this federal court. Moreover, plaintiffs have failed to offer any specifics, including 2 copies of the state court docket that would allow me to determine what has transpired, or is 3 transpiring, in state court that may relate to this action. 4 Order to Show Cause 5 Plaintiffs filed this action in August 2025. To date, only defendant County of Mono has 6 appeared, and plaintiffs have not filed proofs of service demonstrating that the other defendants 7 were properly served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l). 8 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days 9 after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must 10 dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a 11 specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). However, “if the plaintiff shows good cause for the 12 failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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 14 VEREUCK PROPERTIES LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs brought their complaint in the Southern District of New York, and, on 18 September 3, 2025, it was transferred to this district. ECF No. 4. Pending are plaintiffs’ motion 19 for removal and sanctions, ECF No. 7, and the motion to dismiss, ECF No. 10, filed by defendant 20 County of Mono (“defendant”).1 After review of the pleadings, I will grant defendant’s motion 21 and dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. Additionally, I will necessarily deny plaintiffs’ 22 motion for removal and sanctions. Finally, plaintiff will be ordered to show cause why all 23 defendants, with the exception of County of Mono, should not be dismissed for failure to timely 24 serve them. 25 26 27 1 Other defendants are named in the complaint but, as yet, only the County of Mono has 28 been served and has made an appearance. 1 Motion to Dismiss 2 I. Legal Standards 3 A complaint may be dismissed under that rule for “failure to state a claim upon which 4 relief may be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to 5 state a claim, a plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 6 face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has “facial plausibility 7 when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference 8 that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 9 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability 10 requirement,” but it requires more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. 11 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 12 For purposes of dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the court generally considers only 13 allegations contained in the pleadings, exhibits attached to the complaint, and matters properly 14 subject to judicial notice, and construes all well-pleaded material factual allegations in the light 15 most favorable to the nonmoving party. Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 710 16 F.3d 946, 956 (9th Cir. 2013); Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012). 17 Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be based on either: (1) lack of a cognizable legal 18 theory, or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. Chubb Custom Ins. Co., 710 F.3d 19 at 956. Dismissal also is appropriate if the complaint alleges a fact that necessarily defeats the 20 claim. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 1984). 21 II. Analysis 22 Defendant raises two arguments in its motion to dismiss, both of which have merit. First, 23 it argues that the complaint fails to identify specific instances of tortious or unconstitutional 24 activity allegedly perpetrated by defendant. Second, defendant argues that multiple plaintiffs 25 appear to be business entities that have failed to sufficiently identify themselves to allow for pro 26 per representation. Plaintiffs’ complaint shall be dismissed with leave to amend so that they may 27 remedy these deficiencies, if they can. 28 1 A. Failure to Identify Specific Instances of Wrongful Conduct 2 Defendant correctly argues that the complaint fails to satisfy federal pleading standards. 3 Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must allege facts sufficient to 4 provide both “fair notice” to a defendant of the particular claim being asserted and “the grounds 5 upon which [that claim] rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 n.3 (2007) 6 (citation omitted). Plaintiffs have failed to do that here. As defendant points out, the complaint 7 alleges that it has engaged in “an ongoing pattern of politically motivated retaliation, fraudulent 8 legal proceedings, and the refusal and neglect to uphold constitutional duties and protections 9 under color of state law.” ECF No. 1 at 1-2. Plaintiffs assert thirty-five causes of action in 10 conjunction with these formulaic allegations but never explain how each cause of action attaches. 11 It is well settled that “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief 12 requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 13 action will not do . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 14 B. Pro Se Litigation by Business Entities 15 The complaint, despite purporting to be filed on behalf of numerous plaintiffs, including a 16 “foreign nation” and the “Better Medicine Naturally Foundation,” is signed only by an individual 17 named Eldad-Zebulun Yirmeyah-Rapha. ECF No. 1 at 12. This individual does not indicate that 18 he is an attorney licensed in this district and, thus, may represent only himself. See Simon v. 19 Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiffs are advised that all claimants 20 must sign any amended complaint.2 21 Motion for Sanctions 22 Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions is denied. Therein, they request that I sanction and 23 enforce jurisdiction on the Mono County Superior Court. ECF No. 7 at 1-2. They claim that the 24 state superior court wrongfully refused a “notice of removal” that they attempted to file therein. 25 Id. at 2. This motion is denied. There is no indication that any action was removed to this court 26 from state court. As noted above, plaintiffs filed this case in New York federal court, and it was 27 2 I note that plaintiffs have filed an “addendum” to the complaint that also is only signed 28 by Eldad-Zebulun Yirmeyah-Rapha. 1 transferred to this federal court. Moreover, plaintiffs have failed to offer any specifics, including 2 copies of the state court docket that would allow me to determine what has transpired, or is 3 transpiring, in state court that may relate to this action. 4 Order to Show Cause 5 Plaintiffs filed this action in August 2025. To date, only defendant County of Mono has 6 appeared, and plaintiffs have not filed proofs of service demonstrating that the other defendants 7 were properly served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l). 8 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days 9 after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must 10 dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a 11 specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). However, “if the plaintiff shows good cause for the 12 failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Id. Although a pro 13 se litigants are generally afforded more latitude than one represented by counsel, a party’s pro se 14 status does not constitute “good cause” for failing to timely effect service. See King v. Atiyeh, 15 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that 16 govern other litigants.”); Townsel v. Contra Costa Cnty., 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1987) 17 (holding that ignorance of service requirements does not constitute “good cause” for failure to 18 timely effect service); see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(a) (“Any individual representing himself or 19 herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these 20 Rules, and all other applicable law.”). Accordingly, plaintiffs will be ordered to show cause why 21 the non-appearing defendants should not be dismissed for failure to complete effect service. 22 Conclusion 23 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 24 1. Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions, ECF No. 7, is DENIED. 25 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED. 26 3. Plaintiffs’ complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend within thirty 27 days of this order’s entry. 28 ] 4. Plaintiffs shall show cause within fourteen days from the date of this order why this 2 action should not be dismissed for failure to effect service of process within the time 3 prescribed by Rule 4(m). 4 5. Plaintiffs are warned that failure to respond to this order will result in a 5 recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect 6 services of process. 7 6. Failure to file an amended complaint within that deadline will result in a 8 recommendation that this action be dismissed. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: _ February 6, 2026 q———_ 12 JEREMY D. PETERSON 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28