Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dena Peterson filed suit against A+ Coin Laundry and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, asserting a claim for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and damages claims under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, and negligence. The court noted that it only has jurisdiction over the non-ADA claims through supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
The court observed that it presides over many ADA cases involving physical barriers in places of public accommodation, most of which are brought by a small number of repeat plaintiffs and an even smaller number of law firms. The court found that these firms rarely prosecute their cases until the court issues an order to show cause, and that many cases result in defaults requiring multiple orders to show cause for failure to serve, failure to seek entry of default, and failure to move for default judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Peterson to show cause in writing why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and the principle that federal courts should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation. Peterson must identify the amount of statutory damages sought and support the response with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary to determine whether she and her counsel satisfy the definition of a 'high-frequency litigant' under California Civil Procedure Code Sections 425.55(b)(1)-(b)(2). The response is due by November 2, 2026.
The court warned that failure to timely or adequately respond may 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, leading to dismissal of those claims under § 1367(c).
The court also issued a limited scheduling order for ADA physical-barrier cases, finding good cause based on the significant burden that tracking lack of prosecution and sending repeated orders to show cause has placed on its limited 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 7 days after a defendant's response is due if no extension has been granted; and motions for default judgment within 14 days of the last entry of default when only defaulted defendants remain. The court noted it is not generally inclined to enter partial default judgments.
Key Takeaways
- The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause by November 2, 2026, why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims in an ADA case.
- The plaintiff must identify the amount of statutory damages sought and submit declarations under penalty of perjury addressing whether she and her counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law.
- Failure to adequately respond to the order to show cause may result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or dismissal of the state-law claims.
- The court imposed a limited scheduling order requiring proofs of service within 90 days, default requests within 7 days of a missed response deadline, and default judgment motions within 14 days of the last entry of default.
- Noncompliance with the scheduling order may result in dismissal of the action or the defendant at issue, as well as monetary sanctions.
Why It Matters
This order reflects a federal court's effort to manage a high volume of ADA physical-barrier cases by imposing strict prosecution deadlines and requiring early justification for supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims. By conditioning continued federal jurisdiction on a showing that supplemental jurisdiction is warranted and by setting firm deadlines for service, default, and default judgment, the court aims to reduce the burden on judicial resources and prevent cases from languishing.
The order also signals heightened scrutiny of repeat ADA plaintiffs and their counsel, requiring them to disclose facts bearing on their status as high-frequency litigants under California law. This may affect how such cases are litigated in the Central District of California, particularly with respect to damages claims and the pace of prosecution.