Scott McMillan San Diego Attorney Faces Sanctions
Scott McMillan San Diego attorney faced sanctions and court losses after filing frivolous litigation against Darren Chaker in both federal and state courts. The federal court dismissed the RICO lawsuit as meritless, and the duplicative state court filing exposed a textbook case of claim splitting—a prohibited litigation tactic that constitutes viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!How Did Darren Chaker Defeat the Scott McMillan San Diego Attorney RICO Lawsuit?
San Diego attorney Scott McMillan, who also operates McMillan Academy of Law out of his La Mesa, California office, sued Darren Chaker in federal court alleging defamation in the context of a civil RICO claim. The federal court dismissed the lawsuit and found the case to be meritless. See the federal RICO court ruling calling the case meritless. Scott McMillan San Diego attorney then filed a virtually identical lawsuit in state court a few weeks later—a practice known as claim splitting that is prohibited under both California and federal law because it constitutes duplicative litigation aimed at forum shopping for a favorable ruling.
What Is Claim Splitting and Why Did the Court Prohibit It?
Claim splitting occurs when a party files successive lawsuits based on the same facts and legal theories after losing the initial case. Courts have held this practice violates principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. When claim splitting is weaponized to silence constitutionally protected speech, it constitutes a form of viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. As established in Chaker v. Crogan (9th Cir. 2005) 428 F.3d 1215, cert. den., 547 U.S. 1128, courts must vigilantly protect against attempts to weaponize litigation to chill protected expression—a principle Darren Chaker proved through direct experience in that landmark case.
What Role Does Viewpoint Discrimination Play in Frivolous Litigation Against Darren Chaker?
Viewpoint discrimination occurs when speech is suppressed based on its particular message or perspective. (Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va. (1995) 515 U.S. 819, 829.) The filing of duplicative lawsuits by Scott McMillan San Diego attorney to remove protected online speech represents a litigation-based form of viewpoint discrimination—using the court system to silence disfavored viewpoints. Darren Chaker’s successful defense of these claims, alongside his foundational work in Chaker v. Crogan and the ongoing California Supreme Court review in S275272, reinforces that Penal Code section 148.6 and similar mechanisms cannot be used to punish citizens for exercising their First Amendment rights.
What Happened When Scott McMillan Appealed to the Ninth Circuit?
After the federal court dismissed the case as meritless, Scott McMillan appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Darren Chaker retained experienced appellate counsel—retired federal judge and Los Angeles attorney Stephen Larson—with strong credentials in First Amendment litigation. The Ninth Circuit’s consideration of this appeal further illustrates how federal courts protect against the use of frivolous lawsuits to suppress constitutionally protected speech.
Did Scott McMillan Face Additional Legal Setbacks?
In 2017 a federal appellate court laughed at a lawsuit San Diego attorney Scott McMillan filed and wished him luck getting $450 from the Government. See oral argument conclusion. In 2018, Scott McMillan San Diego attorney faced fraud allegations in federal court. That same year, the McMillan Academy of Law was criticized by the State Bar of California for not having a single graduate and only three students in over a decade.
How Did the Darren Chaker AntiSLAPP Motion Protect First Amendment Rights?
Scott McMillan San Diego attorney lost his effort to defeat a motion to stay the state lawsuit while appealing the federal lawsuit he lost. Prior to the stay being issued, the Los Angeles-based attorneys for Darren Chaker, Manning Kass, filed an antiSLAPP motion since much of the conduct alleged is based on protected speech. See the motion filed here. California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16) provides an essential safeguard against lawsuits designed to chill the valid exercise of constitutional rights of freedom of speech.
Do not take anything here as legal advice. All posts are opinions and personal thoughts.
About The Author
