Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Edmond Neal filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California asserting a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010-12213, and a claim for damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53. On October 7, 2026, in Case No. CV 26-11642 PA (ASx), the Honorable Percy Anderson, United States District Judge, issued an in-chambers order to show cause; the civil minutes record that no attorneys were present for either plaintiff or defendants.
The court explained that it appears to possess only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, and any other state-law claim Neal may have alleged, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The order addresses whether those state-law claims should remain in the federal action alongside the federal ADA claim; it does not adjudicate the merits of the alleged ADA violation, award any damages, or dismiss any claim.
Because the order arises at the pleading stage and concerns jurisdiction rather than liability, its practical effect is to require Neal to justify the court's continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims or risk losing them, while the federal ADA claim itself is not challenged by this order.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Neal to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state-law claim asserted in the complaint, invoking the discretionary provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In explaining the governing standard, the court quoted City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997), which in turn quoted Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988), for the proposition that a federal court should consider and weigh the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.
The order imposes three specific response requirements. Neal must identify the amount of statutory damages he seeks to recover. Neal and his counsel must support their responses with declarations signed under penalty of perjury providing all facts necessary for the court to determine whether they satisfy the definition of a 'high-frequency litigant' under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2). The response is due no later than October 21, 2026.
The court warned that failure to timely or adequately respond may, without further warning, result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice, or in the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims, if any, and dismissing those claims pursuant to § 1367(c). These are expressly stated potential consequences of non-response, not a present dismissal or a final jurisdictional ruling; the supplemental-jurisdiction question remains open pending Neal's response.
Key Takeaways
- Neal must file a written response by October 21, 2026, explaining why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act and other state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
- The response must identify the amount of statutory damages Neal seeks to recover.
- Neal and his counsel must submit declarations under penalty of perjury supplying the facts necessary to determine whether they meet California's 'high-frequency litigant' definition in Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
- A late or inadequate response may, without further warning, lead to dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or to dismissal of the state-law claims if the court declines supplemental jurisdiction.
- The order does not decide the ADA or Unruh Act merits and does not itself dismiss anything; the jurisdictional question remains open.
Why It Matters
The order places the burden on Neal to justify keeping his state-law damages claims in federal court rather than assuming they will remain alongside his federal ADA claim. By grounding the inquiry in judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation, the court signals that it may reassess supplemental jurisdiction as the case develops.
The required damages disclosure and sworn high-frequency-litigant declarations give the court case-specific material for its forthcoming jurisdictional determination. Until Neal responds and the court rules further, the action remains pending, subject to the expressly stated dismissal risks.