Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Epifanio Tapias filed a complaint (Dkt. No. 1) against Central De Envios Inc. and other defendants asserting a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, together with damages claims under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, and negligence. The court observed 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 of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued an in-chambers order to show cause and limited scheduling order in Case No. 2:26-cv-12376-JGB-MAR. No attorneys were present for either plaintiff or the defendants. The order addressed two subjects: whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, and the prosecution of ADA cases involving physical barriers in places of public accommodation.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Tapias to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), explaining that the supplemental-jurisdiction statute requires the court to consider and weigh the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation. In responding, Tapias must identify the amount of statutory damages that he seeks to recover, and he and his counsel must support the response 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)-(b)(2). The response is due no later than November 3, 2026.
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 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims and the dismissal of any such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The order did not dismiss any claim and did not finally decide the jurisdictional question.
The court also found good cause to institute a limited scheduling order for ADA cases involving physical barriers in places of public accommodation, citing its findings that repeat law firms in this area rarely prosecute until an order to show cause issues, that many such cases result in defaults requiring multiple orders to show cause, and that tracking non-prosecution has placed a significant burden on the court's limited resources. Under the order, proofs of service for all defendants must be filed within 90 days of filing absent a previously approved extension or a motion or responsive pleading by all defendants; a request for default must be filed 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 must be filed within 14 days of the last entry of default, though the court noted it is not generally inclined to enter partial default judgments. Failure to comply will result in dismissal of the action in its entirety and/or the defendant that is the subject of the required filing, and may also result in monetary sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.
Key Takeaways
- Tapias must file a written response no later than November 3, 2026, showing cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
- The response must identify the amount of statutory damages Tapias seeks to recover and include declarations from Tapias and his counsel, signed under penalty of perjury, addressing the high-frequency-litigant criteria in California Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.55(b)(1)-(b)(2).
- An untimely or inadequate response may, without further warning, lead to dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or to the court declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
- The limited scheduling order sets separate deadlines for proofs of service (90 days after filing), requests for default (7 days after the response deadline), and motions for default judgment (14 days after the last entry of default when only defaulted defendants remain).
- Failure to comply with the scheduling requirements will result in dismissal of the action in its entirety and/or the affected defendant and may also result in monetary sanctions.
Why It Matters
The order requires the plaintiff to supply case-specific information—the statutory damages sought and high-frequency-litigant declarations—as part of showing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, while expressly leaving the ultimate jurisdictional question unresolved and warning of dismissal without prejudice for noncompliance.
The scheduling provisions give advance notice of prosecution deadlines and dismissal consequences in ADA physical-barrier cases, tying those requirements to the court's stated concerns about delayed prosecution, repeated defaults, and the burden on limited judicial resources.