Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rogelio Santibanez 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, the California Disabled Persons Act, and negligence. The court noted that it has jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, CDPA, and other non-ADA claims only through 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.
The court also observed that it presides 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 law firms rarely prosecute their cases until the court issues an order to show cause, that many of these cases result in defaults, and that the resulting need to send three separate orders to show cause — for failure to serve, failure to seek entry of default, and failure to move for default judgment — has placed a significant burden on the court's limited resources.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, grounding the order in the values of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and noting that § 1367(c) supplies the authority to decline such jurisdiction. In responding to the order to show cause, Plaintiff must identify the amount of statutory damages he seeks to recover and must support the response with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the court to determine whether Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel 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 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 dismissing those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Separately, the court found good cause to institute a limited scheduling order concerning prosecution of ADA cases involving physical barriers in places of public accommodation generally, not merely this case. Under that order, proofs of service for all defendants must be filed within 90 days of the filing of the case 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 response deadline passes for any defendant who fails to respond; and a motion for default judgment must be filed within 14 days of the last entry of default when only defaulted defendants remain. The court noted it is not generally inclined to enter partial default judgments, and it warned that failure to comply with any requirement will result in dismissal of the action in its entirety and/or the responsible defendant, and may also result in monetary sanctions.
Key Takeaways
- The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause in writing why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised over the state-law claims, with the response due no later than November 4, 2026.
- The OSC response must state the amount of statutory damages sought and include declarations signed under penalty of perjury addressing whether the plaintiff and his counsel qualify as 'high-frequency litigants' under California law.
- Failure to timely or adequately respond to the OSC may result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or dismissal of only the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
- The limited scheduling order applies prospectively to ADA physical-barrier cases: proofs of service within 90 days of filing, default requests within 7 days of a missed response deadline, and default judgment motions within 14 days of the last entry of default.
- Noncompliance with the scheduling order will result in dismissal of the action in its entirety and/or the responsible defendant, and may also result in monetary sanctions.
Why It Matters
This order reflects the Central District of California's effort to manage a high volume of ADA cases involving physical barriers in public accommodations, many brought by repeat plaintiffs and law firms. By requiring plaintiffs to justify supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and by imposing uniform prosecution deadlines across such cases, the court aims to reduce the burden on its limited resources and ensure timely resolution of these matters.
The order also signals the court's skepticism toward high-frequency litigants and its willingness to dismiss actions entirely or decline supplemental jurisdiction when plaintiffs fail to justify their claims or comply with the court's procedural requirements.