Witt
Jeremy Witt v. Patrick Ross, et al.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 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 GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
9 v. SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED
10 PATRICK ROSS, et al., COMPLAINT 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF Nos. 48, 72]
12 13 This case arises from Defendant Patrick Ross and his attorney Defendant Margaret Trask 14 having cross-filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against Plaintiff Jeremy 15 Witt in state court civil harassment proceedings initiated by Plaintiff against Defendants. 16 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, ECF No. 11 (“FAC”), alleges that Defendants purposefully 17 filed that allegedly meritless cross-motion for a TRO for the sole purpose of harming Plaintiff and 18 states causes of action under California law for (1) malicious prosecution, (2) intentional infliction 19 of emotional distress (“IIED”), and (3) abuse of process. 20 Defendants have filed a special…