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. 179] Defendants JORDAN BROWN; et al., Defendants, and JET GENIUS HOLDINGS, INC., 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 grounds that Defendants did not meet the material terms of the Engagement Agreement, permitting withdrawal under Rule 1.16(b)(5) of California’s Rules of Professional }Conduct. ECF No. 179. Defendants have yet to file their 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 party in question 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). Most Defendants in this case are corporate entities, and they must proceed with counsel; the time to retain replacement counsel may prejudice their claims. Defendants’ lack of response prevents the Court from engaging in a fulsome inquiry on these factors and more. Having considered the motion, and in light of the issues regarding the derivative }claims, the Court ORDERS Defendants to file a response expressing whether they have objections to the ex parte motion and whether and how they intend to retain substitute }counsel. This response shall be due within one week of this Order. Dated: January 7, 2025 Hon. athe Cae United States District Judge 3:22-cv-01164-GPC-JLB