Gaylon Teslaa d/b/a Alpen Pet Hospital v. Vereuck Properties LLC
- Philip Halpern
- 7:25-cv-06991
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Teslaa v. Vereuck Properties, Judge Halpern transferred the case to California because venue was improper in New York.
The plaintiffs’ case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of California; the court did not decide whether the plaintiffs’ claims were valid.
What happened
Gaylon Teslaa d/b/a Alpen Pet Hospital, et al. v. Vereuck Properties LLC, et al. involves claims arising from an alleged eviction of the Alpen Pet Hospital in Mono County, California. The plaintiffs invoked federal civil-rights laws, but the opinion says the complaint was unclear and that the defendants and underlying events appeared to be in California.
The Southern District of New York concluded that venue was improper there because the plaintiffs did not allege that any defendant lived in that district and none of the events occurred there. The court found that the case could have been brought in the Eastern District of California.
Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered the Clerk to transfer the action to the Eastern District of California and close the case. The court did not rule on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.
The detailed version
- Gaylon Teslaa d/b/a Alpen Pet Hospital v. Vereuck Properties LLC · No. 7:25-cv-06991
- Philip Halpern
- Sept. 3, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs—Gaylon Teslaa d/b/a Alpen Pet Hospital, Ephraim-Nation, SMT Restore Revocable Living Trust, GJT Revocable Living Trust, and Better Medicine Naturally Foundation—filed the action against the Bar Association of California, County of Mono, Matthew Lehman, Mono County Superior Court, Gian Carlo Simonetti, State of California, Town of Mammoth Lakes, Vereuck Properties LLC, and Frederick Gillet Wood.
The plaintiffs purported to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, alleging violations of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The complaint identified the alleged wrongful eviction of Alpen Pet Hospital as the central event. The court said the complaint was difficult to understand, but it appeared to allege that the hospital was located in Mono County, California, and that the relevant defendants and events were in California. The civil cover sheet listed a New York address for Gaylon Teslaa d/b/a Alpen Pet Hospital.
Venue analysis
Federal law generally permits a civil action to be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events or property involved in the action is located, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. When venue is improper, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) permits dismissal or transfer in the interest of justice. A court may also transfer a properly filed case for convenience and fairness under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The court concluded that the action could have been brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California because the alleged violations occurred in Mono County, which is in that district. It found that the plaintiffs had not alleged that any defendant resided in the Southern District of New York and that none of the underlying events occurred there. The court stated that the New York address listed for one plaintiff was not a statutory venue factor.
Disposition
The court found that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York and determined that transferring the action to the Eastern District of California was in the interest of justice. It ordered the Clerk to transfer the action and close the case.
The court expressly made no ruling on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. In a footnote, it also noted that artificial entities generally must appear in federal court through a licensed attorney rather than without counsel, but it did not resolve the case on that ground.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.