Background
Jerry Ong’s complaint against MJ Tea House, Inc. and other defendants seeks injunctive relief for an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and damages under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, and negligence law. The October 27, 2026 civil minutes state that the court has federal-question jurisdiction over the ADA claim but only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The order does not decide whether the alleged accessibility violation occurred or resolve the merits of any claim.
Judge Jesus G. Bernal issued the order in chambers, with no attorneys present. He explained that the supplemental-jurisdiction statute requires consideration of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every litigation stage. The court also described its experience managing numerous ADA cases involving physical barriers in public accommodations, many brought by a small group of repeat plaintiffs and law firms. It found that those firms rarely prosecute cases until an order to show cause issues and that defaults often require repeated court orders addressing service, entry of default, and default judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Ong to show cause in writing why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). His response must identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Ong and his counsel must also submit declarations signed under penalty of perjury supplying the 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 3, 2026. An untimely or inadequate response may result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or of the state-law claims.
The accompanying limited scheduling order applies to ADA cases involving physical barriers in places of public accommodation. Absent an approved extension or a motion or responsive pleading by all defendants, proofs of service for every defendant must be filed within 90 days after the case is filed. The court expects that the complaint will be served on all parties promptly after filing. For a defendant who does not timely respond and has no extension, a request for default must be filed within seven days after the response deadline. If only defaulted defendants remain, a motion for default judgment must be filed within 14 days of the last entry of default.
The court cautioned that it generally is not 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 follow the scheduling requirements will result in dismissal of the entire action and/or the affected defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), according to the order’s warning. Noncompliance may also bring monetary sanctions. These are prospective case-management directions and warnings, not an immediate dismissal or sanctions award.
Key Takeaways
- Ong must respond by November 3, 2026, and specifically justify continued federal supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
- The required declarations must address the statutory high-frequency-litigant criteria for both Ong and his counsel under penalty of perjury.
- Proofs of service generally must be filed within 90 days, while requests for default and qualifying default-judgment motions carry seven-day and 14-day deadlines respectively.
- The court warned that inadequate OSC responses or scheduling violations can produce dismissal without prejudice, and scheduling noncompliance may also produce monetary sanctions.
- The order resolves no ADA liability or damages issue; it establishes jurisdictional briefing and prosecution requirements for this and similar physical-barrier ADA cases.
Why It Matters
The order links a jurisdictional inquiry with active management of high-volume accessibility litigation. Rather than waiting for inactivity, the court requires early information about damages and repeat-litigant status while prescribing concrete steps for service and default practice. Its findings about repeated orders to show cause explain the administrative basis for those deadlines and reflect the court’s concern about resource burdens in serial ADA litigation.
For litigants in covered physical-barrier ADA cases before this court, the scheduling provisions make prompt prosecution essential. The warnings also distinguish the present posture from a final adjudication: Ong retains an opportunity to respond by the November 3 deadline, but failure to do so adequately could end the federal action or narrow it by removing state-law claims. The limited scheduling order applies prospectively to similar cases, not just Ong’s action.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket