Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Fernando Gastelum filed a complaint against King Pacific Pasadena Investment Inc. asserting a claim for injunctive relief based on alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and damages claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Those allegations remain allegations; the October 27, 2026 order does not resolve the merits. The Central District of California explained that it had jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim only through supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The order was issued in chambers without attorneys present before United States District Judge Jesus G. Bernal.
The court addressed both the jurisdictional basis for retaining the state-law claims and its management of ADA cases involving physical barriers in places of public accommodation. It found that most such cases are brought by a small number of repeat plaintiffs and an even smaller number of law firms. The court also described recurring prosecution delays, including cases requiring separate orders concerning failure to serve, failure to seek entry of default, and failure to move for default judgment, which it found placed a significant burden on limited judicial resources.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Gastelum to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Citing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the court directed Plaintiff to identify the amount of statutory damages that Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel must also support the response with declarations signed under penalty of perjury providing the facts needed 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 4, 2026.
The order warns 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 and dismissing those claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The order therefore requires an explanation and supporting evidence; it does not yet decide whether the state claims remain in federal court.
The court separately found good cause for a limited scheduling order governing prosecution of ADA physical-barrier cases. 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 within 7 days after the response deadline passes without a response or extension. A motion for default judgment must be filed within 14 days of the last entry of default only when only defaulted defendants remain—that is, no other defendants were named or the claims against all other defendants have been resolved by dismissal, motion, or trial. 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 proof of service, request for default, or motion for default judgment, and may also result in monetary sanctions.
Key Takeaways
- Gastelum must file a written response by November 4, 2026 explaining why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims.
- The response must identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover and include declarations from Gastelum and counsel addressing the California high-frequency-litigant criteria.
- A late or inadequate response may lead to dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or to dismissal of the state-law claims if the court declines supplemental jurisdiction.
- The scheduling order sets a 90-day proof-of-service deadline, a 7-day default-request deadline after an unexcused response deadline, and a 14-day default-judgment deadline only when only defaulted defendants remain.
- The court cautioned that it generally is not inclined to enter partial default judgments and warned that noncompliance may produce dismissal of the action in its entirety and/or the affected defendant, plus monetary sanctions.
Why It Matters
The order makes supplemental jurisdiction an immediate issue in an ADA case that also seeks state-law damages. It requires information about both the damages requested and the litigants’ filing history before the court decides whether retaining the Unruh Act claim is warranted. No dismissal or final jurisdictional determination has yet been made.
The scheduling provisions place responsibility for prompt prosecution on plaintiffs in ADA physical-barrier cases. By tying missed service and default deadlines to dismissal and possible sanctions, the court supplied advance notice of the consequences while leaving the merits of the ADA and Unruh Act allegations unresolved.