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 DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
9 v. MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL
AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
10 PATRICK ROSS, et al., [Re: ECF Nos. 26, 34] 11 Defendants.
12 13 Plaintiff Jeremy Witt moves for an order disqualifying Gordon J. Finwall, counsel for 14 Defendant Patrick Ross, as well as an order for monetary sanctions against Mr. Finwall based on a 15 May 7, 2025, email regarding diversity jurisdiction Mr. Finwall sent to Plaintiff’s former attorneys 16 Michael L. Farley and Matthew D. Owdom (the “Challenged Email”). See ECF Nos. 26, 27 17 (“Disqualify Mot.”), 44 (“Disqualify Reply”); ECF Nos. 34, 35 (“Sanctions Mot.”), 45 18 (“Sanctions Reply”). Defendant opposes the motions. See ECF No. 39 (“Disqualify Opp.”); ECF 19 No. 41 (“Sanctions Opp.”). The Court finds the motions suitable for resolution without oral 20 argument and VACATES the hearing set for November 6,…