Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-06689/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-06689-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

THERESA BROOKE,

Plaintiff,

v.

INDEPENDENCE MENLO HOTEL 

OWNER LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-06689-VKD 

ORDER ADMONISHING PLAINTIFF'S 

COUNSEL PETER KRISTOFER 

STROJNIK

On January 21, 2020, after plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear on behalf of his client at a 

show cause hearing, the Court issued a second order to show cause requiring Peter Kristofer 

Strojnik to explain why the Court should not impose monetary or other sanctions against him 

and/or his client for failure to comply with several notices issued by the Clerk of the Court, failure 

to respond to this Court’s order, and failure to appear at the first show cause hearing. Dkt. No. 18.

Mr. Strojnik’s response to this second order is remarkable. While he purports to apologize 

for disregarding his obligations to the Court, he devotes the bulk of his response to criticizing 

defense counsel. Dkt. No. 19 ¶¶ 3-10. Mr. Strojnik even goes so far as to suggest that 

“[d]efendant’s counsel’s delay” and his own court-ordered appearance for the January 28, 2020

show cause hearing will constitute a breach of the parties’ settlement agreement. Id. ¶ 11. This 

threat apparently inspired defense counsel to ask the Court to take the show cause hearing off 

calendar and not sanction Mr. Strojnik. Dkt. No. 22.

To this date, after three Clerk’s notices and two Court orders, Mr. Strojnik has still not 

filed anything on behalf of his client indicating whether Ms. Brooke consents to or declines 

magistrate judge jurisdiction.

Case 5:19-cv-06689-VKD Document 23 Filed 01/25/20 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

Defense counsel’s conduct is utterly irrelevant to the matters raised in the Court’s orders to 

show cause. Nothing defense counsel did or did not do could possibly have prevented Mr. 

Strojnik from responding to the Clerk’s notices, responding to this Court’s order, or appearing for 

the show cause hearing. Mr. Strojnik gets one thing right in his show cause response: he has no 

excuse. 

The Court does not condone dilatory conduct by any party and appreciates that it does not 

have all the facts before it. However, the Court takes this opportunity to admonish Mr. Strojnik 

for his conduct that the Court has directly observed—i.e., the conduct that resulted in the two 

show cause orders and the unprofessional and irrelevant critique of defense counsel included in 

Mr. Strojnik’s January 21, 2020 show cause response. This is not the first time Mr. Strojnik has 

been admonished or sanctioned for unprofessional (and worse) behavior. See Brooke v. Sarang, 

No: 2:18-cv-01826-KJM-DB, 2019 WL 1281950 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2019) (sanctioning Mr. 

Strojnik for misconduct); In the Matter of Peter Kristofer Strojnik, No. 17-J-00133, Stip. Order of 

Reproval (State Bar Ct. of Cal. Sept. 26, 2018), http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/17-J00133.pdf; see also Brooke v. Peterson et al., 185 F. Supp. 3d 1203, 1206–07 (C.D. Cal. 2016) 

(describing Mr. Strojnik’s extremely disrespectful conduct before the court). The Court hopes and 

expects that Mr. Strojnik will take these admonitions seriously and that it will have no occasion to 

admonish him in the future. 

In view of defendant’s entreaty to vacate the January 28, 2020 hearing and to not impose 

sanctions on Mr. Strojnik or his client, the Court reluctantly vacates the hearing and discharges the 

January 21, 2020 show cause order. 

Mr. Strojnik shall provide a copy of this order to his client, Ms. Brooke.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2020

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-06689-VKD Document 23 Filed 01/25/20 Page 2 of 2