UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------x
GAYLON TESLAA d/b/a ALPEN PET :
HOSPITAL, et al., :
Plaintiffs, :
ORDER
v. :
:
25-CV-06991 (PMH)
VEREUCK PROPERTIES LLC, et al., :
:
Defendants. :
-------------------------------------------------------------x
PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge:
On September 3, 2025, the Court issued an order transferring this matter to the Eastern
District of California. (Doc. 4). According to the docket, this action was transferred electronically,
and the Eastern District of California acknowledged receipt of transferred case on September 18,
2025. On October 29, 2025, Plaintiffs filed seven affirmations of service (Docs. 8-14); a
declaration “in support of motion to reconsider transfer order and right to self counsel” (Doc. 15),
a “motion to recognize real party in interest under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a) (Doc.
16); a “notice of party realignment and clarification of capacity” (Doc. 17); an “affidavit of the
truth” (Doc. 18); and an affidavit “regarding use of the language of correct parse quantum
grammar” (Doc. 19).
“Following the proper transfer of a case from one district to another . . ., the transferor court
loses all jurisdiction over the case.” In re Nw. Airlines Corp., Nos. 05-CV-17930, 07-CV-2677,
2008 WL 4755377, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2008). “Generally, a decision transferring a case can
only be reconsidered or appealed through a writ of mandamus if the petitioner acts ‘prior to receipt
of the action’s papers by the clerk of the transferee court[ ] . . . .’” Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No.
10-CV-05713, 2011 WL 2419802, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2011) (quoting In re Warrick, 70 F.3d
736, 739 (2d Cir. 1995) (alteration in original). Thus, even if Plaintiffs had properly and timely
moved for reconsideration of the transfer order—which they did not—this Court has no
jurisdiction over this case to consider any of Plaintiffs’ applications since the receipt of the action’s
papers by the Eastern District of California court.
The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motion (Doc. 16).
SO ORDERED:
Dated: White Plains, New York
October 31, 2025
Philip M. Halpern”
United States District Judge
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.