Stanz v. Brown
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff's counsel moved to withdraw from the case citing a breach of the engagement agreement and irreconcilable differences. The court granted the motion to withdraw, finding that the withdrawal was warranted and would not unduly prejudice the parties or delay the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to withdraw as counsel granted“the Court finds that voluntary withdrawal is warranted and GRANTS the Counsel’s motion to withdraw.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 1.16(b)(5) and (b)(6), which permit withdrawal when a client breaches a material term of the engagement agreement or renders the representation unreasonably difficult. The court also satisfied the procedural requirement of conferring with the client and holding a hearing. The court's determination that withdrawal would not unduly prejudice the parties or delay the case is supported by the fact that the Final Pretrial Conference is not until March 2025, providing ample time for new counsel to be retained. The court also provided specific protections for the plaintiff's derivative claims by staying any dismissal motions for 45 days. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and applies the correct legal standards for withdrawal of counsel. It cites the relevant ABA Model Rules and Ninth Circuit precedent regarding prejudice and delay. The court's analysis of the specific facts (breach of contract, irreconcilable differences, ample time before trial) supports the conclusion that withdrawal is appropriate and will not harm the administration of justice. The inclusion of a 45-day stay on dismissal motions for the derivative claims shows careful consideration of the plaintiff's rights.
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 GRANTING 13 WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL Plaintiff, 14 v. [ECF No. 131] 15 JORDAN BROWN et al., 16 and 17 18 JET GENIUS HOLDINGS, INC., 19 Defendants. 20 21 On August 9, 2024, Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP and associates 22 Sean M. Sullivan and Justin M. Martin (“Counsel”) filed an ex parte motion to withdraw 23 as counsel for Plaintiff Aaron Stanz (“Plaintiff”). ECF No. 131. By the Court’s order, 24 Plaintiff filed a response. ECF No. 141. 25 Counsel moved to withdraw as counsel on the grounds that Plaintiff has not met 26 the material terms of the engagement agreement and that there are now irreconcilable 27 1 differences. ECF No. 131. The ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct1 permit a 2 lawyer to withdrawal as counsel if the client renders it unreasonably difficult for the 3 lawyer to carry out the representation effectively, Model Rules of Prof. Conduct R. 4 1.16(b)(6), or when the client breaches a material term of an agreement with the lawyer, 5 and the lawyer has given reasonable warning after the breach that the lawyer will 6 withdraw unless the client fulfills the obligation, Model Rules of Prof. Conduct. R. 7 1.16(b)(5). 8 On September 17, Counsel and Plaintiff conferred by telephone and discussed 9 these two grounds for withdrawal. ECF No. 143. The parties could not reach an 10 agreement that these issues could be resolved. Id. 11 After consideration of the papers submitted, the results of the September 17 12 meeting between Counsel and Plaintiff, and the September 20 hearing with Counsel, 13 Plaintiff, and defense counsel present, the Court finds that voluntary withdrawal is 14 warranted and GRANTS the Counsel’s motion to withdraw. 15 Moreover, it does not appear that Counsel’s withdrawal would unduly prejudice 16 the parties, harm the administration of justice, or unduly delay the resolution of this case. 17 See In re Saber, No. 21-55913, 2022 WL 11592836, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022). A 18 Final Pretrial Conference is set for March 7, 2025. Given this date, there is sufficient 19 time for new counsel to be hired and then familiarized with the case without unduly 20 delaying proceedings or prejudicing Plaintiff. Cf. In re Saber, 2022 WL 11592836, at *1 21 22 1 The Court looks to the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct because in a 23 federal proceeding, a lawyer’s conduct is governed by the ethical rules of the relevant 24 court, see In re Snyder, 572 U.S. 634, 645 n.6 (1985), and the Civil Local Rules no longer require attorneys practicing before the Southern District of California to comply with the 25 standards of professional conduct required by the State Bar of California. See generally 26 Suarez v. Del Toro, No. 22-cv-0021-GPC-BLM, 2023 WL 149105 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2023). 27 1 || (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022) (affirming lower court’s denial of withdrawal less than a week 2 || before an evidentiary hearing). 3 As to the derivative claims, there would be no special prejudice suffered by the 4 || Plaintiff, as the Court is giving Plaintiff 45 days to retain new counsel and will not 5 entertain any motions to dismiss the derivative claims before the expiration of the 45-day 6 || period. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 || Dated: September 23, 2024 72 I] Hon. athe Ck 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22-CV-01164-GPC-JLB