Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Fernando Gastelum sued Cha La Mirada LLC in the Central District of California. The complaint seeks injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court stated that it has jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim only through supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The October 29, 2026 civil minutes were issued in chambers, with no attorneys present.
Judge Jesus G. Bernal addressed both jurisdiction and case management. The order explains that supplemental jurisdiction requires consideration of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation. It also describes the court's experience with numerous ADA cases involving physical barriers in places of public accommodation, many brought by repeat plaintiffs and a small group of law firms. The court found that those cases often require repeated orders concerning service, entry of default, and default judgment, burdening limited judicial resources.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Gastelum to show cause in writing why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. His response must identify the amount of statutory damages that he seeks to recover. Gastelum and his counsel must also support their responses with declarations signed under penalty of perjury providing all facts necessary for the court to determine whether they satisfy the definition of a high-frequency litigant as provided by California Civil Procedure Code Sections 425.55(b)(1)-(b)(2). The response is due no later than November 6, 2026. Failure to timely or adequately respond may, without further warning, result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state law claims and dismissing any such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
The court also established a limited scheduling order for ADA cases involving physical barriers in places of public accommodation. Proofs of service for all defendants must be filed within 90 days of the filing of the case absent a previously approved extension of time by the Court or a motion or responsive pleading by all defendants. For any defendant who fails to respond to the complaint within the time provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for whom no extension has been granted, a request for default must be filed no later than 7 days after the time the response to the complaint would have been due. If only defaulted defendants remain in the case—that is, no other defendants were named or the claims against all other defendants have been resolved either by dismissal, motion, or trial—a motion for default judgment must be filed within 14 days of the last entry of default. The court noted that it is not generally inclined to enter partial default judgments, and therefore a motion for default judgment should not be filed if some defendants have appeared and the case has not otherwise been completely resolved. Failure to comply with any of these requirements will result in dismissal of the action in its entirety and/or the defendant that is the subject of the required proof of service, request for default, or motion for default judgment, and may also result in monetary sanctions.
Key Takeaways
- Gastelum must file his written response to the jurisdictional order no later than November 6, 2026.
- The response must identify the amount of statutory damages sought and include declarations addressing the high-frequency-litigant criteria under California Civil Procedure Code Sections 425.55(b)(1)-(b)(2) for both plaintiff and counsel.
- The court has not yet dismissed the Unruh Act claim; it has required justification for retaining supplemental jurisdiction.
- Proofs of service generally are due within 90 days of filing, default requests are due no later than 7 days after the response deadline for unexcused non-responding defendants, and qualifying default-judgment motions are due within 14 days of the last entry of default.
- Failure to follow the scheduling requirements will result in dismissal of the action or the affected defendant and may also result in monetary sanctions.
Why It Matters
The order makes supplemental jurisdiction an immediate issue rather than assuming that a state damages claim should remain alongside the ADA claim. By requiring the amount of statutory damages and declarations addressing high-frequency-litigant status under California Civil Procedure Code Sections 425.55(b)(1)-(b)(2), the court demands a concrete record before deciding whether to retain the state-law claims. The present disposition is a show-cause directive, not a final jurisdictional ruling.
The scheduling provisions also place responsibility for prompt prosecution on the plaintiff. They connect ordinary service and default steps to explicit deadlines and identify dismissal and sanctions as consequences. The order therefore combines an unresolved jurisdictional inquiry with firm case-management requirements.