Jeremy Witt v. Patrick Ross, et al.

[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION [6] 7 JEREMY WITT, Case No. 5:25-cv-02776-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION 9 v. TO DISQUALIFY 10 PATRICK ROSS, et al., [Re: ECF No. 86] 11 Defendants. [12] 13 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Jeremy Witt’s second motion to disqualify Gordon 14 Finwall, attorney for Defendant Patrick Ross. ECF No. 86 (“Mot.”); ECF No. 104 (“Reply”). 15 Mr. Ross opposes the motion. ECF No. 96 (“Opp.”). The Court previously denied Mr. Witt’s first 16 motion to disqualify Mr. Finwall. ECF No. 75 (“Order”). 17 The motion is DENIED. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Mr. Witt filed this civil action on March 24, 2025, alleging causes of action for malicious 20 prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). ECF No. 1. On April 2, 21 2025, Mr. Finwall sent a meet-and-confer letter to Mr. Witt’s counsel at the time, in which he 22 argued that the malicious prosecution claim was barred by the decision in Siam v. Kizilbash, [23] 130 Cal. App. 4th 1563 (2005), and the IIED claim was barred by California’s litigation privilege. 24 Order at 2. In response to that letter, Mr. Witt’s counsel filed an amended complaint adding a 25 third cause of action for abuse of process. ECF No. 11. 26 On May 7, 2025, Mr. Finwall sent Mr. Witt’s counsel a second meet-and-confer letter, 27 incorporating the arguments from the first letter and arguing that the litigation privilege also 1 representations as to his domicile, Mr. Finwall also notified Mr. Witt’s counsel that Mr. Ross 2 disputed the diversity allegation in the first amended complaint. ECF No. 28-1 Ex. A. Mr. Witt’s 3 counsel subsequently withdrew from this case, leaving Mr. Witt pro se. Order at 3. 4 Mr. Witt moved to disqualify Mr. Finwall, accusing him of a variety of ethical violations 5 including “deliberate interference with Plaintiff’s legal representation, manipulation of opposing 6 counsel, and abusive litigation conduct.” ECF No. 27 at 2–3. Mr. Witt also argued that 7 “[d]isqualification is also appropriate where the attorney is likely to be a material witness on 8 contested factual matters.” Id. at 2. The Court denied the motion. Order at 4–5. Mr. Witt filed 9 this second motion, again urging that Mr. Finwall cannot “continue[] to act as advocate where he 10 is a necessary witness.” Mot. at 2. 11 II. LEGAL STANDARD 12 Rule 3.7(a) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct provides that “[a] lawyer shall 13 not act as an advocate in a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a witness unless the lawyer’s 14 testimony relates to an uncontested issue or the nature and value of the legal services rendered in 15 the case.” Disqualification under Rule 3.7 is disfavored and permitted only in narrow 16 circumstances, with the burden on the moving party to demonstrate that the attorney’s testimony is 17 (1) relevant, (2) material, and (3) unobtainable elsewhere. Doe v. Yim, 55 Cal. App. 5th 573 , 583 18 (2020). 19 III. DISCUSSION 20 Mr. Witt argues that Mr. Finwall’s “personal involvement spans nearly every disputed 21 event,” including: (1) “[t]he June 6, 2023 TRO violation and resulting false police report by 22 Patrick and Sherry Ross; (2) “communications with Plaintiff’s former attorneys Hackett and 23 Farley; (3) “[t]he extortion letter authored by or in coordination with attorney Trask citing 24 Mr. Finwall’s authority; (4) “[c]ommunications with witness Melanie Abea regarding release of 25 the June 6, 2023 police report; and (5) “[c]ontinuous coordination with Trask and the Ross 26 defendants in preparing filings now before this Court.” Mot. at 2. None of these allegations even 27 remotely suggest that Mr. Finwall must be disqualified. 1 civil harassment actions giving rise to the June 6, 2023, “violation.” ECF No. 96-1 (“Finwall 2 || Decl.”) § 23. Second, the Court has already explained that Mr. Finwall’s discussions with 3 || Mr. Witt’s previous counsel regarding jurisdiction was not improper. Order at 5. Third, the so4 called “extortion letter” Mr. Witt invokes apparently refers to a settlement proposal, which is 5 || hardly inappropriate. Finwall Decl. § 23. Fourth, Mr. Witt fails to explain what the 6 || communications with Ms. Abea (Mr. Witt’s prior attorney) were or why Mr. Finwall must be 7 deposed in connection therewith. Fifth, it is unsurprising that Mr. Finwall has communicated with 8 Mr. Ross (his client). To the extent that Mr. Finwall has communicated with Ms. Trask, Mr. Witt 9 fails to explain why such communications warrant disqualification. 10 || IV. ORDER 11 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. 12 || Mr. Witt is ADVISED that future frivolous motions will result in the imposition of sanctions. 14 Dated: December 19, 2025 2 TH LABSON FREEMAN 16 United States District Judge