Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Stewart Thompson's complaint seeks injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued the in-chambers order on October 27, 2026, with no attorneys present. The court stated that it has jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim only through supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
The order also addresses the court's broader experience with ADA cases involving physical barriers in places of public accommodation. It says most are brought by a small number of repeat plaintiffs and an even smaller number of law firms. The court found that those firms rarely prosecute cases until an order to show cause issues, and that many cases produce defaults requiring separate orders concerning service, entry of default, and default judgment. It concluded that tracking prosecution and issuing repeated orders significantly burdens limited judicial resources.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Thompson to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and the need to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation. The response must identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Thompson and counsel must also submit declarations signed under penalty of perjury supplying all facts needed to determine whether they meet California's definition of a 'high-frequency litigant' under California Civil Procedure Code Sections 425.55(b)(1)-(b)(2). The response is due November 4, 2026. An untimely or inadequate response may, without further warning, result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or in the court declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the state-law claims.
Finding good cause for a limited scheduling order in physical-barrier ADA accommodation cases, the court required proofs of service for all defendants within 90 days after filing, absent an approved extension or a motion or responsive pleading by all defendants. A request for default against a nonresponding defendant without an extension must be filed within seven days after the response deadline. If only defaulted defendants remain, a default-judgment motion must be filed within 14 days of the last entry of default. Because the court is not generally inclined to enter partial default judgments, such a motion should not be filed while some defendants have appeared and the case remains unresolved. The order warns that noncompliance will result in dismissal of the entire action and/or the affected defendant and may also bring monetary sanctions.
Key Takeaways
- Thompson must respond by November 4, 2026, and specifically justify the court's continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
- The required response must state the statutory damages sought and include perjury-signed declarations addressing high-frequency-litigant status under the cited California provisions.
- The scheduling rules impose 90-day, seven-day, and 14-day deadlines for proofs of service, default requests, and qualifying default-judgment motions.
- The court expressly warned that failures may produce dismissal without further warning and that scheduling-order violations may also result in monetary sanctions.
Why It Matters
This is a show-cause and limited scheduling order, not a merits ruling on the alleged ADA or Unruh Act violations and not a present dismissal. It leaves the jurisdictional question open while requiring concrete information about damages and the litigants' filing history. Its warnings nevertheless create an immediate risk that an inadequate response will end some or all of the federal action.
The scheduling portion also explains a case-management response to recurring prosecution delays in physical-barrier ADA litigation. By tying service and default milestones to dismissal and possible sanctions, the order places responsibility on plaintiffs to move cases forward rather than waiting for repeated court orders.