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
- 2
Teslaa v. Vereuck Properties, Judge Halpern, held that transfer ended this court’s jurisdiction and directed termination of the pending motion.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the transferred case, and the plaintiffs’ pending applications in the Southern District of New York.
What happened
In Gaylon Teslaa d/b/a Alpen Pet Hospital, et al. v. Vereuck Properties LLC, et al., the court had transferred the case to the Eastern District of California. That court acknowledged receiving the case before the plaintiffs filed several documents, including applications concerning reconsideration and party status.
The court explained that after a proper transfer, the original court loses jurisdiction over the case. It also stated that a transfer decision generally must be challenged before the receiving court gets the case papers.
Judge Philip M. Halpern concluded that this court had no jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs’ applications, even assuming they had properly and timely sought reconsideration. He directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion identified as Document 16.
The detailed version
- Gaylon Teslaa d/b/a Alpen Pet Hospital v. Vereuck Properties LLC · No. 7:25-cv-06991
- Philip Halpern
- Oct. 31, 2025
Background
On September 3, 2025, the Court ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of California. The docket showed that the case was transferred electronically and that the Eastern District of California acknowledged receipt on September 18, 2025.
On October 29, 2025, Plaintiffs filed seven affirmations of service and several other documents, including a declaration supporting a motion to reconsider the transfer order and a request for the right to represent themselves, a motion concerning the real party in interest under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a), a notice about party realignment and capacity, and two affidavits.
Court’s Analysis
The Court stated that, after a proper transfer from one district to another, the transferring court loses jurisdiction over the case. It further stated that a transfer decision generally can be reconsidered or appealed through a petition for a special court order only if the challenge is made before the clerk of the receiving court receives the case papers.
The Court concluded that, even if Plaintiffs had properly and timely moved for reconsideration of the transfer order—which the Court said they did not—this Court had no jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs’ applications after the Eastern District of California received the case papers.
Disposition
Judge Philip M. Halpern directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion identified as Document 16. The order did not state that the transfer was undone or that the case was returned to the Southern District of New York.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.