Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dena Peterson filed a complaint 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 claims for damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California's Disabled Persons Act, and negligence. The court stated that it only has jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
On October 27, 2026, Judge Jesus G. Bernal issued civil minutes in chambers containing an order to show cause and a limited scheduling order. The order reflects the court's stated concern about a high volume of ADA cases involving physical barriers in places of public accommodation, which the court said are typically brought by a small number of repeat plaintiffs and an even smaller number of law firms.
The court explained that the supplemental-jurisdiction statute requires a federal court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation. It therefore directed Peterson to justify the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and to supply specific information about statutory damages and the high-frequency-litigant determination.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Peterson to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Her response, due no later than November 3, 2026, must identify the amount of statutory damages she seeks and include 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 court warned that failure to timely or adequately respond to the order to show cause may, without further warning, result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or in the court declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state law claims and dismissing those claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
The limited scheduling order applies to ADA cases involving physical barriers in places of public accommodation. It requires proofs of service for all defendants within 90 days of the filing of the case absent an approved extension or a motion or responsive pleading; a request for default no later than 7 days after the time the response to the complaint would have been due; and, if only defaulted defendants remain, a motion for default judgment within 14 days of the last entry of default. The court cautioned that it is not generally inclined to enter partial default judgments and that a default-judgment motion should not be filed if some defendants have appeared and the case has not been completely resolved. Noncompliance may result in dismissal of the action in its entirety and/or the defendant subject to the unmet requirement, and may also result in monetary sanctions.
Key Takeaways
- The court ordered Peterson to justify in writing why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised over the state law claims, with a response due November 3, 2026.
- The response must state the statutory damages sought and include penalty-of-perjury declarations addressing whether Peterson and her counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law.
- Failure to respond adequately may lead to dismissal of the whole action without prejudice or dismissal of the state law claims after the court declines supplemental jurisdiction.
- In covered ADA physical-barrier cases, the court set firm deadlines for proofs of service, requests for default, and motions for default judgment, subject to the order's defaulted-defendants condition.
- The order warns that noncompliance can bring dismissal of the entire action or the affected defendant and may also bring monetary sanctions.
Why It Matters
The order shows a district court using supplemental-jurisdiction screening and a targeted scheduling order to manage high-volume ADA physical-barrier litigation. By requiring disclosure of statutory damages and high-frequency-litigant facts, the court creates an early procedural checkpoint for plaintiffs and counsel in these cases.
The limited scheduling order also signals that the court will enforce prosecution deadlines strictly, with dismissal and possible sanctions as consequences. Its reasoning may be relevant to other courts facing similar docket pressure from repeat ADA filings, while remaining specific to the Central District of California's stated case-management concerns.