Aaron Stanz, individually and derivatively on behalf of Jet Genius Holdings, Inc. v. Jordan Brown et al. and Jet Genius Holdings, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court considered an ex parte motion by defense counsel to withdraw from representation and a related motion to appear by video conference. The court denied the motion to withdraw for failure to adequately explain the reasons for withdrawal and denied the video conference motion as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to withdraw as counsel denied“As GSA does not adequately explain reasons for withdrawal, the ex parte motion to withdraw is DENIED.” | agree with court The court applied the standard factors for withdrawal, including the reasons for the request. The order notes that the initial motion was vague and that the court ordered supplemental information for in camera review, which was not provided. Denying the motion based on the failure to provide the requested specific reasons is a defensible procedural ruling to ensure the court can properly evaluate the prejudice to the client and the administration of justice. |
Motion to appear by video conference denied“Defendant’s motion to appear by video conference is DENIED as moot.” | agree with court The motion to appear by video was likely tied to the hearing for the withdrawal motion. Since the withdrawal motion was denied and the hearing was vacated, the motion to appear by video is no longer relevant. |
Hearing vacated“The hearing set on August 21, 2026 shall be VACATED” | agree with court This is a logical consequence of denying the motion to withdraw. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for withdrawal and applies it to the procedural failure of the moving party to provide the specific information requested by the court. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities.
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 DENYING WITHDRAWAL 13 OF COUNSEL AND DENYING Plaintiff, MOTION TO APPEAR BY VIDEO 14 v. CONFERENCE 15 JORDAN BROWN et al., [ECF Nos. 249, 256] 16 and 17 18 JET GENIUS HOLDINGS, INC., 19 Defendants. 20 21 On July 21, 2026, GRANT | SHENON | ALMARAZ, A Professional Law 22 Corporation (“GSA”) and all attorneys associated with it filed an ex parte motion to 23 withdraw from representation of Defendants Jordan Brown, Jet Genius Holdings, Inc., Jet 24 Genius Florida Holdings, Inc., C3 Jets LLC, C3 Limo LLC, Jet Agency Global, LLC, and 25 Bowman Aviation, Inc. (“Defendants”). No opposition was filed. 26 27 | “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court.” Darby v. City 2 of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992). Courts should consider the following 3 || factors when ruling upon a motion to withdraw as counsel: 4 5 (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; the harm withdrawal might cause to the 6 administration of justice and 4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case. 7 || Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. C09-01643 SBA, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. 8 Sept. 15, 2010). 9 In addition, Rule 1.16(b)(4) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct of the 10 || State Bar of California provides that an attorney may request a withdrawal if it is 11 unreasonably difficult for counsel to carry out his employment effectively. Cal. R. Prof. 12 || Conduct 1.16(b)(4). 13 GSA has stated that “[i]rreconcilable differences have arisen between GSA and 14 || Defendants concerning the attorney-client relationship and continued 15 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ have resulted in a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship 16 have rendered it unreasonably difficult for GSA to continue representing Defendants 17 || effectively.” ECF No. 249 at 9. Given that the application did not state specific reasons, 18 Court ordered GSA to file additional information for in camera review. GSA did not 19 || file any supplemental materials. 20 As GSA does not adequately explain reasons for withdrawal, the ex parte motion 21 ||to withdraw is DENIED. The hearing set on August 21, 2026 shall be VACATED, and 22 Defendant’s motion to appear by video conference is DENIED as moot. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 74 Dated: August 20, 2026 72 / Ox 25 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel %6 United States District Judge 27 28 22-CV-01164-GPC-JLB