Stanz v. Brown et al

Filing 186

ORDER to File Response to Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (ECF No. 179 ). Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 1/7/25.(jmo)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Plaintiff AARON STANZ, individually
and derivatively on behalf of Jet Genius
Holdings, Inc.,

13
14
15
16

v.

Defendants,
and

19

JET GENIUS HOLDINGS, INC.,

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

[ECF No. 179]

Defendants JORDAN BROWN; et al.,

18

21

ORDER TO FILE RESPONSE TO
MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
COUNSEL

Plaintiff,

17

20

Case No.: 3:22-cv-01164-GPC-JLB

Nominal Defendant.

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.3(f)(3), the law firm of Higgs Fletcher & Mack,
and all attorneys associated with it including Sean M. Sullivan and Justin M. Martin
(“Movant”), filed an ex parte motion to withdraw as counsel for Defendants Bowman
Aviation, Inc., Jet Agency Global LLC, C3 Limo LLC, Jordan Brown, Jet Genius
Holdings, Inc., Jet Genius Florida Holdings, Inc., C3 Jets LLC (“Defendants”), on
1
3:22-cv-01164-GPC-JLB

1

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

2

thus 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
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2025

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
3:22-cv-01164-GPC-JLB