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 Disabled Persons Act, and negligence law. The Central District of California explained that its jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, CDPA, and other non-ADA claims depends on supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The October 27, 2026 order did not decide whether Peterson had proved any accessibility violation or was entitled to damages.
The court addressed both jurisdiction and case management. It observed that it handles many ADA cases involving physical barriers in places of public accommodation, often brought by a small group of repeat plaintiffs and an even smaller group of law firms. According to the court, those firms rarely prosecute the cases until an order to show cause issues, while defaults can require separate orders concerning service, entry of default, and default judgment. The court found that tracking inactivity and issuing repeated orders placed a significant burden on its limited resources.
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 § 1367(c) and the considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity drawn from City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons. Her response must identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Peterson and her counsel must also submit declarations signed under penalty of perjury supplying the facts needed to determine whether they meet California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.55(b)(1)-(b)(2)'s definition of a 'high-frequency litigant.' The response is due November 4, 2026. An untimely or inadequate response may, without further warning, lead to dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or dismissal of state-law claims after the court declines supplemental jurisdiction.
The court also found good cause to institute a limited scheduling order concerning prosecution in ADA cases involving physical barriers in places of public accommodation; these are general rules for such cases, not directives unique to this action. Absent a previously approved extension of time by the Court or a motion or responsive pleading by all defendants, proofs of service for every defendant must be filed within 90 days after the case is filed. If a defendant does not respond within the time allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and no extension has been granted, a request for default must be filed within seven days after the response was due. When only defaulted defendants remain, a motion for default judgment must be filed within 14 days after the last entry of default. The court said it generally is not inclined to enter partial default judgments, so such a motion should not be filed while some defendants have appeared and the case remains unresolved. Noncompliance will result in dismissal of the action or the affected defendant and may also bring monetary sanctions.
Key Takeaways
- Peterson must file her written response to the supplemental-jurisdiction order by November 4, 2026.
- The response must state the statutory damages sought and include supporting declarations from Peterson and her counsel addressing the high-frequency-litigant criteria.
- Under the limited scheduling order, proofs of service generally must be filed within 90 days absent a previously approved extension, requests for default within seven days after a missed response deadline, and default-judgment motions within 14 days after the last entry of default when only defaulted defendants remain.
- The order warns of dismissal and possible monetary sanctions but does not itself dismiss any claim, decline supplemental jurisdiction, or decide the merits of Peterson's allegations.
Why It Matters
The order makes supplemental jurisdiction an immediate issue rather than automatically retaining every state-law claim alongside the ADA claim. Its declaration requirement also ties the court's inquiry to California's high-frequency-litigant provisions and requires a concrete statement of the statutory damages at stake. The threatened consequences are conditional: the court has not yet declined jurisdiction or dismissed the action.
The scheduling portion is designed to prevent physical-barrier ADA cases from sitting inactive through missed service and default steps. It supplies specific deadlines and advance notice of dismissal and sanctions, while discouraging premature requests for partial default judgment in cases where other defendants have appeared.