Witt v. Ross
- Beth Freeman
- 5:25-cv-02776
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Jeremy Witt v. Patrick Ross, Judge Freeman denied Witt’s second motion to disqualify Ross’s attorney, Gordon Finwall.
Jeremy Witt’s motion was denied, so Gordon Finwall remained attorney for Defendant Patrick Ross. The court also warned Witt that future frivolous motions could result in sanctions.
What happened
Jeremy Witt, representing himself, asked the court for a second time to remove Gordon Finwall as attorney for Patrick Ross. Witt argued that Finwall’s involvement in events and communications made him a necessary witness.
Witt pointed to Finwall’s alleged involvement in a June 6, 2023 incident, communications with Witt’s former attorneys, a settlement proposal, communications with Melanie Abea, and coordination with Ross and another attorney. Ross opposed the motion. The court applied California’s rule generally barring a lawyer from acting as a trial advocate when the lawyer is likely to testify, unless the testimony concerns an uncontested issue or legal fees.
The court found that Witt’s allegations did not show that Finwall’s testimony was relevant, material, and unavailable from another source. Judge Freeman denied the motion and warned Witt that future frivolous motions could lead to sanctions.
The detailed version
- Witt v. Ross · No. 5:25-cv-02776
- Beth Freeman
- Dec. 19, 2025
Background
Jeremy Witt filed claims for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress and later added an abuse-of-process claim. After Witt’s counsel withdrew, Witt proceeded without a lawyer. Witt had previously moved to disqualify Gordon Finwall, the attorney for Defendant Patrick Ross, and the court denied that motion. Witt then filed this second motion, again arguing that Finwall could not continue as an advocate because he was a necessary witness.
Legal standard
The court applied Rule 3.7(a) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. That rule generally prevents a lawyer from acting as an advocate at a trial when the lawyer is likely to be a witness, except when the testimony concerns an uncontested issue or the nature and value of legal services. The court explained that disqualification is disfavored and requires the moving party to show that the lawyer’s testimony is relevant, material, and unavailable from another source.
Witt’s arguments
Witt argued that Finwall had personal involvement in nearly every disputed event, including:
- the alleged June 6, 2023 violation of a temporary restraining order and a resulting police report; - communications with Witt’s former attorneys; - a settlement proposal that Witt described as an extortion letter; - communications with Melanie Abea concerning release of the June 6, 2023 police report; and - communications with another attorney and the Ross defendants concerning filings in the case.
Court’s analysis
The court rejected these arguments. It stated that the allegations concerning the June 6, 2023 event involved civil harassment actions. It had already found that Finwall’s discussions with Witt’s former counsel about jurisdiction were not improper. The court said the alleged extortion letter apparently was a settlement proposal and was not inappropriate on that basis. It also found that Witt had not explained what Finwall’s communications with Melanie Abea were or why Finwall would need to be deposed, and that communications between Finwall and his client were unsurprising. Witt likewise had not explained why Finwall’s communications with the other attorney required disqualification.
Ruling
The court denied the second motion to disqualify Gordon Finwall. The court also advised Witt that future frivolous motions would result in the imposition of sanctions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.