Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Yeong Lee 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 damages claims under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, the California Health and Safety Code, and negligence. The court explained that its jurisdiction over the non-ADA claims rests solely on supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
The court noted 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 firms rarely prosecute their cases until an order to show cause issues, that many cases end in defaults requiring multiple orders to show cause, and that tracking non-prosecution burdens the court's limited resources.
The Court’s Holding
Citing the supplemental jurisdiction statute's concern for judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the court ordered the plaintiff to show cause in writing why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The response must identify the amount of statutory damages sought and include declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine whether the plaintiff and 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 by November 4, 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 a declination of supplemental jurisdiction and dismissal of the state-law claims. It also issued a limited scheduling order concerning prosecution 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 of time by the Court or a motion or responsive pleading by all defendants; requests for default must be filed no later than 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 in the case.
The court cautioned that it is not generally inclined to enter partial default judgments, so a default judgment motion should not be filed while some defendants have appeared and the case remains unresolved. 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 proof of service, request for default, or motion for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Link v. Wabash, and may also lead to monetary sanctions.
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts may require ADA plaintiffs to justify supplemental jurisdiction over state-law damages claims, particularly where statutory damages and high-frequency litigant status are at issue.
- The plaintiff must file declarations under penalty of perjury providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine whether the plaintiff and counsel satisfy the high-frequency litigant definition under California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 425.55(b)(1)-(b)(2) by November 4, 2026.
- Failure to respond adequately to the order to show cause may lead to dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or dismissal of the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
- The limited scheduling order imposes firm deadlines: 90 days for proofs of service absent a previously approved extension or responsive pleading by all defendants, 7 days for default requests, and 14 days for default judgment motions after the last entry of default when only defaulted defendants remain.
- Noncompliance with the scheduling order risks dismissal of the action in its entirety and/or the affected defendant under Rule 41(b) and Link v. Wabash, as well as possible monetary sanctions.
Why It Matters
This order reflects a growing practice among federal courts in the Central District of California to scrutinize serial ADA accessibility lawsuits at the outset, particularly the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that carry statutory damages. By requiring plaintiffs to disclose damages sought and facts bearing on their high-frequency litigant status, the court can better assess whether state-law claims belong in federal court.
The limited scheduling order also signals a case-management approach designed to reduce the administrative burden of tracking unprosecuted ADA cases. Practitioners handling accessibility litigation in this district should expect strict enforcement of service, default, and default judgment deadlines, with dismissal and sanctions as consequences for delay.