Opinion

Stanz v. Brown

Court
District Court, S.D. California
Filed
Jan 7, 2025
Cited by
0 cases

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. 179]

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), the law firm of Higgs Fletcher & Mack,

23

and all attorneys associated with it including Sean M. Sullivan and Justin M. Martin

24

(“Movant”), filed an ex parte motion to withdraw as counsel for Defendants Bowman

25

Aviation, Inc., Jet Agency Global LLC, C3 Limo LLC, Jordan Brown, Jet Genius

26

Holdings, Inc., Jet Genius Florida Holdings, Inc., C3 Jets LLC (“Defendants”), on

27

1 || grounds that Defendants did not meet the material terms of the Engagement Agreement,

2 permitting withdrawal under Rule 1.16(b)(5) of California’s Rules of Professional

3 |}Conduct. ECF No. 179.

4 Defendants have yet to file their own response to this motion. In considering a

5 || motion to withdraw as counsel, the Court must account for several factors, including

6 || whether the motion is opposed or joined by the party in question and the harm that

7 || withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice. See In re Saber, No. 21-55913,

8 2022 WL 11592836, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022). Most Defendants in this case are

9 || corporate entities, and they must proceed with counsel; the time to retain replacement

10 counsel may prejudice their claims. Defendants’ lack of response prevents the Court

11 || from engaging in a fulsome inquiry on these factors and more.

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

13 |}claims, the Court ORDERS Defendants to file a response expressing whether they have

14 || objections to the ex parte motion and whether and how they intend to retain substitute

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

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 Dated: January 7, 2025

18 Hon. athe Cae

19 United States District Judge

20

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.