Jack C.

Scott McMillan La Mesa Attorney found to be a vexatious litigant. Before becoming an attorney, Scott McMillan Law Firm, 4670 Nebo Drive, La Mesa, Scott McMillan was losing cases and looks like was found to be a vexatious litigant too.
In McMillan v. Weathersby (9th Cir. 2002) 31 F. App'x 371,374, Scott McMillan, La Mesa, complained about his loss, and being called a 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 LOST that case.

In another case Scott McMillan La Mesa Attorney - Fry's Electronics 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. Lytwyn v. Fry's Electronics, Inc. (2005) 126 Cal. App. 4th 1455, 1464 [25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 791]

Now it looks like Scott McMillan, McMillan Law Firm, tells clients he a leading law firm, is paid, then gets to lose cases. A few recent examples of Scott McMillans recent losses:

Plikaytis v. Fairmont, L. P. et al. Case Number D******* (lost appeal)
McMillan Law Group, Inc. et al. V. The Superior Court of San Diego County/Yelp, Inc. D*******
37-*******4953-CU-BT-CTL (case where law firm was sued by Yelp! For posting its OWN REVIEWS lost writ petition)
Kelegian v. Anders et al., Case Number D******* (Transfer/certification denied)
Williams v. Digius et al. Case No. D******* (opposed defendants appeal and lost)
Oceans Eleven Casino v. Anders, Case Number S******* (lost California Supreme Court case)
Bridgeman v. Allen et al., Case Number D******* (lost appeal AND McMillans client forced to pay costs of respondent)
Morton v. Spotts, Case Number D******* (McMillan lost appeal his client lost at trial and found liable for $15,000)
Williams v. Nordstrom, Inc., SD Sup Ct. 37-*******7604-CU-CR-CTL, Plaintiff and his counsel, were sanctioned nearly $16,000 for discovery abuse; case on appeal, see Case Number D*******
Williams v. The Superior Court of San Diego County/Nordstrom, Inc., D*******, 37-*******7604-CU-CR-CTL (writ denied)
McMillan Law Group, Inc. et al. V. The Superior Court of San Diego County/Yelp, Inc. 37-*******4953-CU-BT-CTL, D******* (writ denied) [law firm posted its OWN reviews]