# Stanz v. Brown

> District Court, S.D. California · January 7, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10777498

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** January 7, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10777498

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10777498. Public record. Not legal advice.