Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jerry Ong filed a complaint in the Central District of California asserting a claim for injunctive relief arising out of alleged violations of 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 noted that it has jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, CDPA, and other non-ADA claims only pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
The court explained that the supplemental jurisdiction statute reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, citing City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons and Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill. It therefore ordered Ong to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
The court also described its experience presiding over many ADA cases involving physical barriers in places of public accommodation, most brought by a small number of repeat plaintiffs and an even smaller number of law firms. It found that these repeat firms rarely prosecute their cases until the court issues an order to show cause, that many cases result in defaults requiring three separate orders to show cause, and that tracking the lack of prosecution has placed a significant burden on the court's limited resources.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Ong to show cause in writing why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. In responding, Ong must identify the amount of statutory damages he seeks to recover, and both Ong and his counsel must support the response with declarations signed under penalty of perjury providing all facts necessary 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 2, 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 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 court also found good cause to institute a limited scheduling order for ADA cases involving physical barriers in places of public accommodation: 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; requests for default must be filed within 7 days after the time the response to the complaint would have been due; and motions for default judgment must be filed within 14 days of the last entry of default if only defaulted defendants remain.
The court stated that it is not generally inclined to enter partial default judgments, so a motion for default judgment should not be filed if some defendants have appeared and the case has not been completely resolved. The order serves as notice that failure to comply with any requirement 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 Railroad Co.
Key Takeaways
- The court is scrutinizing whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in this ADA case, ordering Ong to justify it in writing under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
- Ong must file his response by November 2, 2026, identifying the statutory damages sought and submitting perjury-signed declarations from himself and his counsel on 'high-frequency litigant' status under California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 425.55(b)(1)-(b)(2).
- The limited scheduling order imposes strict deadlines: proofs of service within 90 days, default requests within 7 days after a response is due, and default judgment motions within 14 days of the last entry of default.
- Failure to comply with the order to show cause or the scheduling order may result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice, dismissal of the subject defendant, or monetary sanctions.
- The court will not generally enter partial default judgments while non-defaulted defendants remain in the case.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the judiciary's increasing use of show-cause orders and case-management scheduling orders to address high-frequency ADA litigation. By requiring plaintiffs to justify supplemental jurisdiction and imposing strict prosecution deadlines, the court aims to reduce the burden on judicial resources and ensure cases move forward promptly rather than languishing until a show-cause order issues.
The order signals to repeat plaintiffs and their counsel that the court will not tolerate delays in serving defendants or seeking defaults, and that noncompliance may bring dismissal or sanctions. The court's specific findings about repeat law firms and the resource burden of tracking unprosecuted cases supply the rationale for the deadlines and may influence how other courts manage similar high-volume ADA dockets.