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 DENYING WITHDRAWAL
13 OF COUNSEL AND DENYING
Plaintiff,
MOTION TO APPEAR BY VIDEO
14
v. CONFERENCE
15
JORDAN BROWN et al.,
[ECF Nos. 249, 256]
16
and
17
18 JET GENIUS HOLDINGS, INC.,
19 Defendants.
20
21 On July 21, 2026, GRANT | SHENON | ALMARAZ, A Professional Law
22 Corporation (“GSA”) and all attorneys associated with it filed an ex parte motion to
23 withdraw from representation of Defendants Jordan Brown, Jet Genius Holdings, Inc., Jet
24 Genius Florida Holdings, Inc., C3 Jets LLC, C3 Limo LLC, Jet Agency Global, LLC, and
25 Bowman Aviation, Inc. (“Defendants”). No opposition was filed.
26
27
| “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” Darby v. City
2 of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992). Courts should consider the following
3 || factors when ruling upon a motion to withdraw as counsel:
4
5 (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal
may cause to other litigants; the harm withdrawal might cause to the
6 administration of justice and 4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay
the resolution of the case.
7 || Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. C09-01643 SBA, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D.
8 Sept. 15, 2010).
9 In addition, Rule 1.16(b)(4) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct of the
10 || State Bar of California provides that an attorney may request a withdrawal if it is
11 unreasonably difficult for counsel to carry out his employment effectively. Cal. R. Prof.
12 || Conduct 1.16(b)(4).
13 GSA has stated that “[i]rreconcilable differences have arisen between GSA and
14 || Defendants concerning the attorney-client relationship and continued
15 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ have resulted in a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship
16 have rendered it unreasonably difficult for GSA to continue representing Defendants
17 || effectively.” ECF No. 249 at 9. Given that the application did not state specific reasons,
18 Court ordered GSA to file additional information for in camera review. GSA did not
19 || file any supplemental materials.
20 As GSA does not adequately explain reasons for withdrawal, the ex parte motion
21 ||to withdraw is DENIED. The hearing set on August 21, 2026 shall be VACATED, and
22 Defendant’s motion to appear by video conference is DENIED as moot.
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
74 Dated: August 20, 2026 72 / Ox
25 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
%6 United States District Judge
27
28 22-CV-01164-GPC-JLB