PETER STROJNIK, Sr. v. SINGPOLI GROUP, LLC, DBA DusitD2 Hotel Constance Pasadena

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETER STROJNIK, Sr.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SINGPOLI GROUP, LLC, DBA DusitD2
Hotel Constance Pasadena,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-55310

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00066-JLS-AGR

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Peter Strojnik, Sr. appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
for failure to comply with court orders his action alleging violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and state law. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal under

*
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).
FILED

APR 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-55310
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260
(9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Strojnik’s action
with prejudice because despite two opportunities to comply with the court’s orders
to serve the ADA packet on the defendant, Strojnik failed to serve the ADA packet
on the defendant. See id. at 1260-63 (setting forth factors for determining whether
a pro se action should be dismissed under Rule 41(b) and requiring “a definite and
firm conviction” that the trial court “committed a clear error of judgment” in order
to overturn such a dismissal (citation and internal citation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.