Monday, September 15, 2014

Home » , , , , , » False Statements by Scott McMillan. The McMillan Law Firm

False Statements by Scott McMillan. The McMillan Law Firm

No comments
La Mesa Attorney Scott McMillan, http://www.scottmcmillan.us/ 4670 Nebo Dr #200, La Mesa, CA 91941. Legal malpractice, poor performance, default notices, dismissed cases, and a graduate of an unaccredited law school located in a strip mall, oh, and Dean of his own law school McMillan Academy of Law. The McMillan Law Firmqualifies in each category. The McMillan Law Firm somehow finds the courage to call itself a "leading" law firm on its website, but has not been recognized by a single legal publication as leading in a field of law. No doubt, Scott McMillan, The McMillan Law Firm, has a handful of wins in the appellate court - about 6 out of over 100 cases filed in the Court of Appeal and separate cases rejected by the California Supreme Court, and less at the trial level, but does have three or four clients (for an entire decade) who will post admirable things about him online. However, true statements about being a "leading" law firm I feel are false since the track record is simply not there.  

Leading law firms have not a few happy clients, but dozens, and post remarkable victories for not only like Encino firm Horvitz & Levy "Recent Wins", Los Angeles/San Diego firm Morris Purdy & Polich with 126 published appellate cases, Greines Martin Stein & Richland with over a hundred wins and U.S. Supreme Court victories, but small ones too like Morris & Stone in Orange County, Panish Shea & Boyle and Girardi & Keese in Los Angeles, or would be a member of the Academy of Appellate Advocates, however Scott McMillan is not even accreditedby the Better Business Bureau. 
The record is a record of failure in the Court of Appeal, San Diego. Similar failure is found where McMillan operates The McMillan Academy of Law out of his office. To date, I cannot locate a single student or graduate who has passed the state bar exam. Do you know a single attorney who is also the Dean of his own law school operated out of his own office? I don't, but maybe I'm just sheltered!
Unfortunately, La Mesa Attorney Scott McMillan's poor performance record doesn’t buy credit with the Court of Appeal, Division One [San Diego]. McMillan Law Firm could not afford the filing fee, which resulted in his client's case [D051843] being dismissed. 

Similarly, another appeal was dismissed after allowing McMillan Law Firm to cure the defect [Case # D051760]. Not only does it appear that Scott McMillan has lost almost every appeal in San Diego, and Petition for Review in the California Supreme Court, but the court has also noted numerous errors with the McMillan Law Firm:

Loss of major anti-SLAPP case involving multivolume file, the court said in part:
“Assuming Sterling [McMillan client] properly raised these issues below, they do not show the court abused its discretion…  Although the public certainly has a significant interest in a free and fair election to select its next representative, there is no showingthat Sterling is the person whom the public would choose or that a protective order would have precluded a fair and free election.”  9/30/13
 
"Appellant notified re failure to timely file opening brief." 6/8/11

"Dismissal order filed." 11/30/10

"Order denying petition filed" 6/10/10

“Application for waiver of filing fee filed.” 3/26/10
“Fee waiver request denied.” 3/29/10 (demonstrates McMillan doesn’t know standard to get fee waiver approved)
“Order denyingpetition filed.” 4/9/10
“Petition for review denied in Supreme Court.” 6/9/10

“Default notice sent-appellant notified per rule 8.100(c).” 2/4/10
“Default letter sent; no case information statement filed.” 2/18/10
“Petition for review denied in Supreme Court.” 10/27/10

"Because appellant did not timely pay the filing fee, the appeal is dismissed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100(c)(5).)" (legal malpractice)
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=41&doc_id=1142678&doc_no=D051843

"Default re: 8.130(b) rptrs fees not depositedrcvd. dtd."6/23/09 

"Appellant's application to file an oversize brief of 24,361 words is DENIED. Appellant has not shown good cause to file an opening brief in excess of the 14,000 word limit. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.204 (c)(1) and 8.50(b); all rule references are to the California Rules of Court.) Appellant's opening brief and appellant's appendix are RETURNED UNFILED. Appellant is directed to REMOVE all attachments to the opening brief which do not comply with Rule 8.204(d)." 1/28/10 [must be very embarrassing to presume the court will grant your motion, then have it all returned to you!]

"Order denyingpetition filed." 9/18/09


 “Abandonment of appeal filed in trial court.” 03/03/2009
 
 "Appellant notified re failure to timely file opening brief." 3/26/2009

"Abandonment of appeal filed in trial court." 3/3/09

 “Default letter sent; no case information statement filed.” 1/21/08
“Appellant notified re failure to timely file opening brief.” 5/1/08
“The judgment is affirmed.” [aka loss] 11/25/08
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=41&doc_id=1142418&doc_no=D051814

“Default notice received-appellant notified per rule 8.140(a)(1).” 1/10/08
“Appeal dismissedper rule 8.140(b).” 2/5/08 (legal malpractice)
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=41&doc_id=1141858&doc_no=D051760

 “Appellant was properly placed in default for failure to serve and file in superior court either a notice designating a reporter's transcript or a notice of intent to proceed without a reporter's transcript as required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.130(a). After failure to cure the default, appellant was served with a Notice of Failure to Clear Default by superior court on November 6, 2007. Appellant having failed to clear the default or make application to this court for relief, the appeal is DISMISSED. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.140(a)(1).)” (legal malpractice)

"Petition for review denied in Supreme Court." 2/16/11

 “Default notice sent-appellant notified per rule 8.100(c).”    10/12/07
“Default letter sent; no case information statement filed.”  10/31/07
“Received default notice 8.120(a) desig. not filed.“    11/08/07
 “Default notice sent-appellant notified per rule 8.100(c).” 10/4/07

Multiple Losses Against Fry’s Electronics – likely to extort money in lieu of litigation, but Fry’s stood up to McMillan. Really, who sues a company so many times and loses? The McMillan Law Firm, Scott McMillan of La Mesa does.
Court of Appeal Case:
D043079




Case Caption:
Fry's Electronics, Inc. v. Apex Wholesale, Inc.
Case Type:
CV
Filing Date:
10/15/2003


Cross Referenced Cases:                  
D035819
Apex Wholesale, Inc. v. Fry's Electronics Inc. et al.
D037412
Fry's Electronics, Inc. v. Apex Wholesale, Inc.
D037688
Fry's Electronics, Inc. v. Apex Wholesale, Inc.
D039272
Apex Wholesale, Inc. et al. v. Fry's Electronics, Inc. et al.
D039276
Apex Wholesale, Inc. v. Fry's Electronics, Inc. et al.
D039929
Fry's Electronics, Inc. v. Apex Wholesale, Inc.
D041174
Apex Wholesale, Inc. v. Fry's Electronics, Inc. et al.
D041383
Apex Wholesale, Inc. v. Fry's Electronics et al.
D042075
Bivens v. Fry's Electronics, Inc. et al.
D042401
Lytwyn v. Fry's Electronics, Inc. et al.
Location: La Mesa, CA, USA

0 comments:

Post a Comment