Brooke v. Independence Menlo Hotel Owner LLC

Background

The court had issued a second order requiring plaintiff’s counsel, Peter Kristofer Strojnik, to explain why the court should not impose monetary or other sanctions against him or his client. The order followed several failures: responding to notices from the Clerk of Court, responding to a court order, and appearing at the first hearing requiring an explanation. Mr. Strojnik had failed to appear for that hearing on behalf of Theresa Brooke.

Counsel’s Response and the Court’s Admonishment

Mr. Strojnik’s response apologized for disregarding his obligations but primarily criticized defense counsel. He also suggested that defense counsel’s delay and his own required appearance at the January 28, 2020 hearing would breach the parties’ settlement agreement. Defense counsel asked the court to remove the hearing from the calendar and not sanction Mr. Strojnik.

The court stated that defense counsel’s conduct was irrelevant to the issues raised by the show-cause orders and could not have prevented Mr. Strojnik from responding to the notices and order or appearing at the hearing. The court said Mr. Strojnik had no excuse. It admonished him for the conduct that led to the two show-cause orders and for the unprofessional and irrelevant criticism of defense counsel. The opinion also notes that Mr. Strojnik had previously been admonished or sanctioned for unprofessional conduct.

Ruling

The court reluctantly vacated the January 28, 2020 hearing and discharged the January 21, 2020 show-cause order in light of defendant’s request that the hearing be vacated and that no sanctions be imposed on Mr. Strojnik or Ms. Brooke. The order does not impose monetary or other sanctions. Mr. Strojnik was ordered to provide Ms. Brooke with a copy of the order.