The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 AARON STANZ, individually and Case No. 3:22-CV-01164-GPC-JLB
derivatively on behalf of Jet Genius
12
Holdings, Inc., ORDER GRANTING
13 WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff,
14
v. [ECF No. 131]
15
JORDAN BROWN et al.,
16
and
17
18 JET GENIUS HOLDINGS, INC.,
19 Defendants.
20
21 On August 9, 2024, Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP and associates
22 Sean M. Sullivan and Justin M. Martin (“Counsel”) filed an ex parte motion to withdraw
23 as counsel for Plaintiff Aaron Stanz (“Plaintiff”). ECF No. 131. By the Court’s order,
24 Plaintiff filed a response. ECF No. 141.
25 Counsel moved to withdraw as counsel on the grounds that Plaintiff has not met
26 the material terms of the engagement agreement and that there are now irreconcilable
27
1 differences. ECF No. 131. The ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct1 permit a
2 lawyer to withdrawal as counsel if the client renders it unreasonably difficult for the
3 lawyer to carry out the representation effectively, Model Rules of Prof. Conduct R.
4 1.16(b)(6), or when the client breaches a material term of an agreement with the lawyer,
5 and the lawyer has given reasonable warning after the breach that the lawyer will
6 withdraw unless the client fulfills the obligation, Model Rules of Prof. Conduct. R.
7 1.16(b)(5).
8 On September 17, Counsel and Plaintiff conferred by telephone and discussed
9 these two grounds for withdrawal. ECF No. 143. The parties could not reach an
10 agreement that these issues could be resolved. Id.
11 After consideration of the papers submitted, the results of the September 17
12 meeting between Counsel and Plaintiff, and the September 20 hearing with Counsel,
13 Plaintiff, and defense counsel present, the Court finds that voluntary withdrawal is
14 warranted and GRANTS the Counsel’s motion to withdraw.
15 Moreover, it does not appear that Counsel’s withdrawal would unduly prejudice
16 the parties, harm the administration of justice, or unduly delay the resolution of this case.
17 See In re Saber, No. 21-55913, 2022 WL 11592836, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022). A
18 Final Pretrial Conference is set for March 7, 2025. Given this date, there is sufficient
19 time for new counsel to be hired and then familiarized with the case without unduly
20 delaying proceedings or prejudicing Plaintiff. Cf. In re Saber, 2022 WL 11592836, at *1
21
22
1 The Court looks to the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct because in a
23
federal proceeding, a lawyer’s conduct is governed by the ethical rules of the relevant
24 court, see In re Snyder, 572 U.S. 634, 645 n.6 (1985), and the Civil Local Rules no longer
require attorneys practicing before the Southern District of California to comply with the
25
standards of professional conduct required by the State Bar of California. See generally
26 Suarez v. Del Toro, No. 22-cv-0021-GPC-BLM, 2023 WL 149105 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10,
2023).
27
1 || (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022) (affirming lower court’s denial of withdrawal less than a week
2 || before an evidentiary hearing).
3 As to the derivative claims, there would be no special prejudice suffered by the
4 || Plaintiff, as the Court is giving Plaintiff 45 days to retain new counsel and will not
5 entertain any motions to dismiss the derivative claims before the expiration of the 45-day
6 || period.
7
8 IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10 || Dated: September 23, 2024 72
I] Hon. athe Ck
12 United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 22-CV-01164-GPC-JLB