NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THERESA BROOKE, No. 20-17236
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-02736-SK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PHILIP H. STILLMAN,
Appellant,
and
BALAJI ALAMEDA LLC,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Sallie Kim, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 21, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: BADE and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS,*** District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable William K. Sessions III, United States District Judge
for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
Attorney Philip Stillman (“Stillman”) appeals an order issuing sanctions against
him. Stillman claims the district court violated his due process rights. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s order de novo.
See Thomas, Head & Greisen Emps. Trust v. Buster, 95 F. 3d 1449, 1458 (9th Cir.
1996) (“The issue of whether a district court provided an alleged contemnor due
process … is a legal question subject to de novo review on appeal.”). Upon review
we reverse the sanctions order and remand.
Stillman represented defendant Balaji Alameda LLC in an Americans with
Disabilities Act claim brought by plaintiff Theresa Brooke (“Brooke”). Brooke was
represented by Attorney Peter Strojnik (“Strojnik”). During that case, Strojnik
filed a “Third Discovery Letter,” alleging Stillman’s refusal to comply with a
court-ordered deadline and requesting in a single sentence that “Defendant’s
counsel be sanctioned and be ordered to immediately schedule the settlement
meeting.” The court acknowledged that Plaintiff’s “Third Discovery Letter” was
“not about discovery, so the filing of a discovery letter brief rather than a motion
for sanctions was inappropriate,” and it “admonishe[d] Plaintiff’s counsel for filing
a motion [for sanctions] under the guise of a discovery motion.” Nonetheless, the
court sanctioned Stillman in the amount of $250 and referred him to the Northern
District of California’s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct. This appeal
followed.
2
The court did not provide Stillman adequate notice and an opportunity to be
heard before imposing sanctions. “[N]otice and an opportunity to be heard are
indispensable prerequisites for the types of sanctions imposed by the district
court.” Lasar v. Ford Motor Co., 399 F.3d 1101, 1109-10 (9th Cir. 2005); see also
Cole v. United States Dist. Court, 366 F.3d 813, 821 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that
procedural due process requires “notice of the grounds for, and possible types of,
sanctions”). The Northern District of California has local rules that guide the
implementation of sanctions. “In the federal system there is no uniform procedure
for disciplinary proceedings. The individual judicial districts are free to define the
rules to be followed and the grounds for punishment.” See Weissman v. Quail
Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1198 (citing Standing Comm. on Discipline v.
Ross, 735 F.2d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir.1984). “At a minimum, however, an attorney
subject to discipline is entitled to procedural due process, including notice and an
opportunity to be heard.” Id. (citing In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 550 (1968)).
United States District Court for the Northern District of California Local
Rule 7-8 requires that a motion for sanctions be separately filed and a date for a
hearing set, while Local Rule 7-2 requires that a motion be noticed on the motion
calendar of the assigned judge and include a concise statement of the relief sought.
The issuance of sanctions here did not conform to the court’s local rules or
the constitutional requirements of due process. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a discovery
3
letter, added in a single line about sanctions, and failed to comply with Local Rules
7-2 and 7-8. Plaintiff’s Third Discovery letter should not be construed as
necessitating a response from Stillman. The court sanctioned Stillman without
notifying the parties that it contemplated imposing sanctions and the nature and
substance of those sanctions. Furthermore, the court also did not give the parties a
chance to be heard prior to issuing the order. Consequently, Stillman had little
reason to know that Plaintiff’s “Third Discovery Letter” was a motion for
sanctions or that the court was considering it as such. We therefore find that
Stillman was not on sufficient notice that the court was considering sanctions and
did not have adequate opportunity to respond. See Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc.,
179 F.3d 1194, 1199 (holding that the district court had not given adequate notice
and opportunity to be heard in an attorney discipline case where “no order to show
cause was issued” and “no hearing was held”).
Sanctions Order REVERSED AND REMANDED.
4