Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dena Peterson's complaint seeks injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California's Disabled Persons Act, and negligence. Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the Central District of California issued the order in chambers on October 27, 2026, in case number SACV 26-3115 JGB (ADSx). No attorneys were present, and the proceedings were not reported.
The court explained that it has jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, CDPA, and other non-ADA claims only through supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). It therefore ordered Peterson to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, citing § 1367(c) and the considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. The order also addresses the court's broader management of ADA physical-barrier cases, which it described as frequently brought by a small number of repeat plaintiffs and law firms.
The Court’s Holding
Peterson must identify the amount of statutory damages she seeks. She and her counsel must support their responses with declarations signed under penalty of perjury supplying all facts necessary to determine whether they meet the definition of a "high-frequency litigant" under California Civil Procedure Code Sections 425.55(b)(1)-(b)(2). The response is due no later than November 2, 2026. Failure to respond timely or adequately may, without further warning, result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or dismissal of state-law claims if the court declines supplemental jurisdiction.
The court also found good cause for a limited scheduling order in ADA cases involving physical barriers in places of public accommodation. It cited repeated failures to prosecute, defaults requiring multiple show-cause orders, and the burden on court resources. Proofs of service for all defendants must be filed within 90 days of filing, absent an approved extension or a motion or responsive pleading by all defendants. Requests for default against nonresponding defendants must be filed within seven days after the response deadline, and a motion for default judgment must be filed within 14 days of the last entry of default when only defaulted defendants remain.
The court said it is not generally inclined to enter partial default judgments, so a default-judgment motion should not be filed while some defendants have appeared and the case remains unresolved. The order warns that failure to comply will result in dismissal of the entire action and/or the defendant covered by the missed requirement, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Link v. Wabash Railroad Co. Noncompliance may also result in monetary sanctions.
Key Takeaways
- Peterson must respond to the supplemental-jurisdiction order by November 2, 2026, and state the statutory damages she seeks.
- Declarations from Peterson and her counsel must provide facts bearing on whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants under the cited California provisions.
- An inadequate or untimely response could lead to dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or dismissal of the state-law claims.
- The scheduling order sets deadlines of 90 days for proofs of service, seven days for requests for default, and 14 days for default-judgment motions when only defaulted defendants remain.
- The court warned that violations of the scheduling requirements will result in dismissal and may also bring monetary sanctions.
Why It Matters
The order does not decide the merits of Peterson's accessibility allegations or dismiss any claim. Instead, it places the burden on Peterson and her counsel to justify continued federal jurisdiction over the state-law claims and to provide specific damages and high-frequency-litigant information under oath. The November 2, 2026 response deadline makes the supplemental-jurisdiction issue the immediate procedural focus of the case.
The scheduling provisions also reflect the court's effort to move ADA physical-barrier cases without repeated show-cause orders. The deadlines and express dismissal and sanctions warnings make prompt service and default procedures central to the case's continued prosecution, and the court's statement that it is not generally inclined to enter partial default judgments signals that plaintiffs should resolve all defendants before seeking default judgment.