Judge David D. Wolfe denied a pro se motion to dismiss filed by defendant Eric Casillas in a civil suit alleging defects and nondisclosure related to a property renovation and gave Casillas 30 days to file an appropriate written answer or seek counsel.

At a hearing on the motion, the judge reviewed the procedural standards for a Rule 12 motion to dismiss and said he must assume the facts alleged in the amended complaint are true for the purpose of the motion. The judge concluded the amended complaint contains allegations that, if proven, could state a cause of action against Casillas and therefore it would be premature to dismiss the claims at this stage.

Casillas told the court he had not worked for Sauvage Development, that he only assisted his wife with a small amount of work at the property, and that he believed his inclusion in the suit was erroneous. Plaintiff’s counsel responded that the amended complaint contains detailed factual allegations and exhibits, and that any work Casillas performed would be subject to the contract terms governing repairs.

The judge denied the motion to dismiss and instructed Casillas to file a proper answer within 30 days of entry of the order. The court advised Casillas to consult an attorney and explained that the denial does not amount to a finding of liability; rather, it means the court found sufficient allegations to require a response and allow discovery to proceed.

No roll‑call vote applies to the court’s procedural ruling. The court set the procedural next steps and emphasized that a failure to answer could expose Casillas to default judgment if he does not comply with the rules.