Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00650/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00650-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

3:19-cv-00650-BAS-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER STROJNIK, SR.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v.

EVANS HOTELS, LLC,

Defendant/Counter-Claimant.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-00650-BAS-AHG

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS 

[ECF No. 66]

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Against 

Nadia Bermudez for Unauthorized Use of Plaintiff’s E-Signature on Joint Case 

Management Statement. ECF No. 66. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Peter Strojnik, Sr. 

(“Plaintiff”) seeks sanctions because, after the parties had agreed upon a completed Joint 

Case Management Statement, Nadia Bermudez, counsel for Defendant/Counter-Claimant 

Evans Hotels, LLC (“Defendant”), made an addition to the Statement detailing the parties’ 

dispute about whether to stipulate to continuing an upcoming evidentiary hearing before 

the District Judge in this matter, and a related dispute about the independent medical 

evaluation (“IME”) that the District Judge ordered Plaintiff to undergo. Id. at 2; see also 

ECF No. 62 ¶ 21.

Before Ms. Bermudez added the paragraph detailing the parties’ dispute, she had 

requested Plaintiff’s version of the document in Word format to make “changes to the 

Case 3:19-cv-00650-BAS-AHG Document 68 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:19-cv-00650-BAS-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

section on discovery.” Plaintiff agreed, but requested “to see the final version before 

filing.” ECF No. 66, Ex. 1. Although Ms. Bermudez did email her updated version to 

Plaintiff approximately a half-hour prior to filing it, Plaintiff argues her behavior is 

sanctionable because she included his signature without first receiving his approval of the 

additional paragraph or allowing him to include a response. Further, Plaintiff contends the 

additional paragraph is misleading and, in his Motion, he offers his own paragraph 

responding to Defendant’s characterization of the dispute.

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions, the Court finds sanctions are not 

warranted. First, Plaintiff has not demonstrated any harm from Ms. Bermudez’s addition 

of the paragraph. Specifically, Defendant states in the paragraph at issue that it “will need 

to file an ex parte motion seeking a change to the evidentiary date as well as confirming 

[Plaintiff’s] IME date.” ECF No. 62 ¶ 21. Defendant filed the anticipated ex parte motion 

on January 16, 2020. ECF No. 67. Therefore, the parties will each have an opportunity to 

be heard directly on that issue through ordinary motion practice before the District Judge. 

A Joint Case Management Statement, submitted to the Magistrate Judge for the purpose of 

scheduling discovery and pretrial deadlines, is not the appropriate vehicle to raise a dispute 

regarding the continuance of the evidentiary hearing or the IME in the first place. Thus,

the Court did not and would not consider Defendant’s characterization of the dispute 

therein for the purpose of addressing or resolving the dispute. Indeed, it is apparent from 

Defendant’s filing of a separate motion on the dispute that it did not anticipate its added 

paragraph to operate as a formal motion on that issue. Now that Defendant has filed its

motion, Plaintiff will have the opportunity to respond and be heard. Therefore, Plaintiff has 

not been prejudiced by his inability to include his responsive paragraph in the Joint Case 

Management Statement.

Second, Plaintiff offers no explanation or authority regarding the source or basis for 

his sanctions request. Instead, after describing the underlying issue regarding the Joint Case 

Management Statement, Plaintiff merely states, “Sanctions are warranted.” 

ECF No. 66 at 3. Without more, it is difficult for the Court to analyze what sanctions should 

Case 3:19-cv-00650-BAS-AHG Document 68 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:19-cv-00650-BAS-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

issue or why. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) (authorizing sanctions against a party or 

attorney who fails to appear at a hearing, is substantially unprepared to participate or does 

not participate in good faith at a hearing, or fails to obey a court order); 

Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding that sanctions against an 

attorney for “reckless misstatements of law and fact,” without more, are not justified under 

the Court’s “inherent power[,]” but that such “inherent power” sanctions may issue if the 

Court “specifically finds bad faith or conduct tantamount to bad faith,” or if recklessness 

is “combined with an additional factor such as frivolousness, harassment, or an improper 

purpose.”). If Plaintiff’s Motion is indeed meant to be premised on the Court’s “inherent 

power” to sanction an attorney for making a reckless misstatement of fact coupled with an 

improper purpose, “[i]t is the moving party’s burden to demonstrate that the party against 

whom it seeks sanctions acted with the requisite bad faith or improper purpose.” Lofton v. 

Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC, 308 F.R.D. 276, 285 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Plaintiff’s conclusory 

statement that “[s]anctions are warranted” fails to meet that burden. Therefore, Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 66) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-00650-BAS-AHG Document 68 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3