Opinion

Stanz v. Brown

Court
District Court, S.D. California
Filed
Aug 27, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 31.3%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 Plaintiff AARON STANZ, individually Case No.: 3:22-cv-01164-GPC-JLB

and derivatively on behalf of Jet Genius

12

Holdings, Inc., ORDER TO FILE RESPONSE TO

13 MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS

Plaintiff,

COUNSEL

14

v.

15 [ECF No. 131]

Defendants JORDAN BROWN; et al.,

16

Defendants,

17

18 and

19

JET GENIUS HOLDINGS, INC.,

20

Nominal Defendant.

21

22

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.3(f)(3) and 83.3(g), Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves &

23

Savitch, LLP, including Sean M. Sullivan and Justin M. Martin, filed an ex parte motion

24

to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Aaron Stanz (“Plaintiff”), on grounds that Plaintiff

25

did not meet the material terms of the Engagement Agreement and that there now exist

26

irreconcilable differences. Dkt. No. 131.

27

1 Plaintiff has yet to file his own response to this motion. In considering a motion to

2 || withdraw as counsel, the Court must account for several factors, including whether the

3 || motion is opposed or joined by the plaintiff and the harm that withdrawal might cause to

4 || the administration of justice. See In re Saber, No. 21-55913, 2022 WL 11592836, at *1

5 || (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022). Plaintiff's lack of response prevents the Court from engaging in

6 ||a fulsome inquiry on these factors and more.

7 Moreover, as to Plaintiffs derivative claims, the Court places Plaintiff on notice as

8 || to the consequences of a withdrawal of counsel on his derivative claims. Generally, a

9 || plaintiff pursuing a derivative lawsuit on behalf of a corporation cannot proceed pro se

10 || without legal counsel. Phillips v. Tobin, 548 F.2d 408, 411-12 (2d. Cir. 1976); see also

11 v. High Country Broadcasting Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993).

12 Having considered the motion, and in light of the issues regarding the derivative

13 claims, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a response expressing whether he has

14 || objections to the ex parte motion and whether he intends to retain substitute counsel.

15 || This response shall be due within one week of this Order.

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

18 ||Dated: August 27, 2024 72

19 Hon. athe Cae

20 United States District Judge

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3:22-cv-01164-GPC-JLB

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.