The_McMIllan_Law_Firm_La_Mesa / Scott_McMillan_Law_Firm_La_Mesa

1 La Mesa, CA, United States
Contact information:

While looking at the representations of Scott McMillan, McMIllan Law Firm, in La Mesa, it caused me great concern to see an attorney claim he is a "leading" attorney, but looks like was found to be a vexatious litigant to top off being the dean of his own law school - McMillan Academy of Law - which has not seen a single graduate in a decade.

Also, concerning are the harsh words judges have made to Scott McMillan, McMillan Law Firm,

* McMillan v. Weathersby (9th Cir. 2002) 31 F.App'x 371, 374. [Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. D.C. No. 95-CV-3934TW(LAB). Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding.] “None of the three main episodes that McMillan offers supports granting a mistrial. McMillan first asserts that defense counsel violated the court's in limine ruling barring reference to McMillan as a "vexatious litigant" by referring to McMillan's other lawsuits in his opening statement.”

* McMillan v. Camacho (9th Cir. Dec. 14, 1994, No. [protected] U.S. App. LEXIS 35442, at *3.) [Not on PACER, record may be on PACER],

“Believing that he was being unfairly treated by appellee United States Customs Service, appellant customs broker brought an action against appellee….In his underlying action, McMillan alleged that the Customs Service is attempting to prevent him from practicing his new career as a customhouse broker...McMillan has failed even to allege any hindrance which would prevent either his family members or his employers from protecting their own interests"

• Brightwell v. McMillan, Case # 37-2016-[protected]-CU-PN-CTL, sued McMillan and settled case for malpractice.

• Nordstrom defended by Haight Bonsteel (LA office), SD Case # 37-2014-[protected]-CU-CR-CTL. Court issued $16, 000 discovery sanctions against McMillan in 2016. Although the judgment was reversed due to settlement, it does not negate the findings by the court.

* In February 2003, Fry's filed a motion entitled, “Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Stay to Prohibit Conflicting and Vexatious Litigation Based on Changed Facts or Alternatively, Motion for Reconsideration of November 22, 2002 Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction/Stay.”… Fry's supported its motion with various documents it lodged in this case that were taken from the Apex case.”..”require that we direct the trial court to grant judgment on the pleadings in favor of Fry's” (Lytwyn v. Fry's Electronics, Inc. [protected] Cal.App.4th 1455, 1464 [25 Cal.Rptr.3d 791].) *


Jan 21, 2017

Post your comment