Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Epifanio Tapias filed suit against Angel's Panaderia, Inc. and other defendants alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and related California state law claims. The complaint seeks injunctive relief under the ADA and damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, and a negligence theory. The federal court's jurisdiction over the state-law claims rests solely on supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), as the ADA claim provides the only independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
On October 27, 2026, U.S. District Judge Jesus G. Bernal issued a civil minutes order addressing two case management matters. First, the court ordered Tapias to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, CDPA, and negligence claims. Second, the court imposed a limited scheduling order establishing expedited deadlines for service of process, requests for entry of default, and motions for default judgment in ADA cases involving physical barriers in places of public accommodation.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Tapias to file a written response by November 4, 2026, explaining why the court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The order requires Tapias to identify the specific amount of statutory damages sought and to submit declarations signed under penalty of perjury providing all facts necessary to determine whether Tapias and counsel meet the definition of 'high-frequency litigant' under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.55(b)(1)-(b)(2). The court warned that failure to timely or adequately respond could 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 under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
The court also instituted a limited scheduling order for ADA physical barrier cases, citing findings that a small number of repeat law firms rarely prosecute cases until the court issues orders to show cause, many cases result in defaults requiring multiple OSCs, and tracking lack of prosecution burdens court resources. The order requires proofs of service for all defendants within 90 days of filing absent an approved extension or responsive pleading, requests for default within seven days after a defendant's response deadline passes, and motions for default judgment within 14 days of the last entry of default when only defaulted defendants remain. The court stated it is not generally inclined to enter partial default judgments and warned that failure to comply with any requirement will result in dismissal of the action or the affected defendant, and may result in monetary sanctions.
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts may require ADA plaintiffs to justify supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims, particularly when statutory damages under California law may be substantial.
- Plaintiffs identified as high-frequency litigants under California procedural rules face heightened scrutiny and must provide detailed declarations about their litigation history.
- District courts experiencing high volumes of ADA accessibility cases may impose expedited scheduling orders that compress deadlines for service, default, and default judgment to prevent cases from languishing.
- Failure to comply with case management orders in ADA cases can result in dismissal of the entire action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), even at early stages of litigation.
- Courts may decline to enter partial default judgments and require plaintiffs to resolve claims against all defendants before seeking default judgment against non-responsive parties.
Why It Matters
This order reflects growing judicial skepticism toward high-volume ADA accessibility litigation, particularly cases brought by repeat plaintiffs and law firms. By requiring plaintiffs to justify supplemental jurisdiction and disclose high-frequency litigant status at the outset, courts can assess whether state-law damages claims are being used to leverage settlements rather than vindicate legitimate accessibility rights. The expedited scheduling requirements address a documented pattern of cases stalling after filing, consuming judicial resources through repeated orders to show cause for failure to serve, failure to seek default, and failure to move for default judgment.
The order also signals that courts will actively manage ADA dockets through early intervention and strict enforcement of procedural deadlines. The warning that noncompliance will result in dismissal under Rule 41(b) and potential monetary sanctions puts plaintiffs and counsel on notice that ADA cases will not be permitted to linger indefinitely. This approach may reduce the number of dormant cases while preserving access to federal courts for plaintiffs who diligently prosecute meritorious accessibility claims.