Stanz v. Brown

Opinion

Plaintiff AARON STANZ, individually Case No.: 3:22-cv-01164-GPC-JLB and derivatively on behalf of Jet Genius Holdings, Inc., ORDER TO FILE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS Plaintiff, COUNSEL v. [ECF No. 131] Defendants JORDAN BROWN; et al., Defendants, and JET GENIUS HOLDINGS, INC., Nominal Defendant.

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.3(f)(3) and 83.3(g), Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP, including Sean M. Sullivan and Justin M. Martin, filed an ex parte motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Aaron Stanz (“Plaintiff”), on grounds that Plaintiff did not meet the material terms of the Engagement Agreement and that there now exist irreconcilable differences. Dkt. No. 131. Plaintiff has yet to file his own response to this motion. In considering a motion to withdraw as counsel, the Court must account for several factors, including whether the motion is opposed or joined by the plaintiff and the harm that withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice. See In re Saber, No. 21-55913, 2022 WL 11592836, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022). Plaintiff's lack of response prevents the Court from engaging in a fulsome inquiry on these factors and more. Moreover, as to Plaintiffs derivative claims, the Court places Plaintiff on notice as to the consequences of a withdrawal of counsel on his derivative claims. Generally, a plaintiff pursuing a derivative lawsuit on behalf of a corporation cannot proceed pro se without legal counsel. Phillips v. Tobin, 548 F.2d 408, 411-12 (2d. Cir. 1976); see also v. High Country Broadcasting Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993). Having considered the motion, and in light of the issues regarding the derivative claims, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a response expressing whether he has objections to the ex parte motion and whether he intends to retain substitute counsel. This response shall be due within one week of this Order. Dated: August 27, 2024 72 Hon. athe Cae United States District Judge 3:22-cv-01164-GPC-JLB