Stanz v. Brown
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed an ex parte motion by plaintiff's counsel to withdraw as counsel, noting that the plaintiff had not yet filed a response. The court ordered the plaintiff to file a response within one week stating whether he objects to the withdrawal and whether he intends to retain substitute counsel.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order to file response to motion to withdraw as counsel“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.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the plaintiff's failure to respond prevented a full inquiry into the factors required for withdrawal, specifically the opposition of the client and the harm to the administration of justice. Requiring a response before ruling on the motion is a standard and appropriate procedural step to ensure the client's rights are protected, particularly given the derivative nature of the claims. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the standard for evaluating motions to withdraw, which requires consideration of the client's position. By ordering a response, the court ensures it has the necessary information to make a ruling that protects the plaintiff's interests, especially regarding the derivative claims which cannot be pursued pro se. The reasoning is concise but directly addresses the procedural deficiency (lack of response) that precludes a final ruling.
Opinion
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. 131] 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) and 83.3(g), Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & 23 Savitch, LLP, including Sean M. Sullivan and Justin M. Martin, filed an ex parte motion 24 to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Aaron Stanz (“Plaintiff”), on grounds that Plaintiff 25 did not meet the material terms of the Engagement Agreement and that there now exist 26 irreconcilable differences. Dkt. No. 131. 27 1 Plaintiff has yet to file his own response to this motion. In considering a motion to 2 || withdraw as counsel, the Court must account for several factors, including whether the 3 || motion is opposed or joined by the plaintiff and the harm that withdrawal might cause to 4 || the administration of justice. See In re Saber, No. 21-55913, 2022 WL 11592836, at *1 5 || (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022). Plaintiff's lack of response prevents the Court from engaging in 6 ||a fulsome inquiry on these factors and more. 7 Moreover, as to Plaintiffs derivative claims, the Court places Plaintiff on notice as 8 || to the consequences of a withdrawal of counsel on his derivative claims. Generally, a 9 || plaintiff pursuing a derivative lawsuit on behalf of a corporation cannot proceed pro se 10 || without legal counsel. Phillips v. Tobin, 548 F.2d 408, 411-12 (2d. Cir. 1976); see also 11 v. High Country Broadcasting Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993). 12 Having considered the motion, and in light of the issues regarding the derivative 13 claims, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a response expressing whether he has 14 || objections to the ex parte motion and whether he intends to retain substitute counsel. 15 || This response shall be due within one week of this Order. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 ||Dated: August 27, 2024 72 19 Hon. athe Cae 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3:22-cv-01164-GPC-JLB