Gaylon Teslaa v. Vereuck Properties LLC, et al.

E.D. California

Gaylon Teslaa v. Vereuck Properties LLC, et al.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided March 26, 2026·No. 2:25-cv-02685·Unknown

Opinion

GAYLON TESLAA, Case No. 2:25-cv-2685-DC-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS VEREUCK PROPERTIES LLC, et al., Defendants. On February 6, 2026, I granted defendant County of Mono motion to dismiss and dismissed all claims against County of Mono. ECF No. 30. Plaintiffs were granted thirty days to file an amended complaint and warned that failure to timely do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id. Lastly, I ordered plaintiffs to show cause why the remaining defendants should not be dismissed for failure to timely effectuate service. Id. The deadline has passed, and plaintiffs have neither filed an amended complaint nor demonstrated that they served all defendants with the exception of County of Mono. Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 1. Plaintiffs’ claims against County of Mono be dismissed for failure to state a claim for reasons set for in the court’s February 6, 2026 order. See ECF No. 30. 2. Plaintiffs’ claims against all other defendants be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely complete service of process. 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 1] D IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ March 25, 2026 aw—— 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, Case No. 2:25-cv-2685-DC-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS VEREUCK PROPERTIES LLC, et al., Defendants. On February 6, 2026, I granted defendant County of Mono motion to dismiss and dismissed all claims against County of Mono. ECF No. 30. Plaintiffs were granted thirty days to file an amended complaint and warned that failure to timely do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id. Lastly, I ordered plaintiffs to show cause why the remaining defendants should not be dismissed for failure to timely effectuate service. Id. The deadline has passed, and plaintiffs have neither filed an amended complaint nor demonstrated that they served all defendants with the exception of County of Mono. Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 1. Plaintiffs’ claims against County of Mono be dismissed for failure to state a claim for reasons set for in the court’s February 6, 2026 order. See ECF No. 30. 2. Plaintiffs’ claims against all other defendants be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely complete service of process. 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 1] D IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ March 25, 2026 aw—— JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Gaylon Teslaa v. Vereuck Properties LLC, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

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

Opinion

Related