Darren Chaker was sued for First Amendment conduct under federal RICO laws. The attorney who sued him, Scott McMillan San Diego attorney desired to have the lawsuit heard before a more favorable judge so falsely claimed the lawsuit 'related to' a criminal action, when in truth it did not. Darren Chaker's attorneys sought sanctions for making the false statement and Scott McMillan did not oppose it.

1. OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT DARREN D. CHAKER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM OF RELATED CASES [CivLR 40.1]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SULLIVAN, KRIEGER, TRUONG,
SPAGNOLA & KLAUSNER, LLP
Eliot F. Krieger, State Bar No. 159647
EKrieger@SKTLawyers.com
444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1700
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 597-7070
Attorneys for Defendant DARREN D. CHAKER,
individually, and as trustee of PLATINUM HOLDINGS
GROUP TRUST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SCOTT A. MCMILLAN, an individual,
THE MCMILLAN LAW FIRM, APC, a
California professional corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DARREN D. CHAKER an individual, and
as trustee of PLATINUM HOLDINGS
GROUP TRUST, dba COUNTER
FORENSICS; NICOLE CHAKER, an
individual, and as trustee of NICOLE
CHAKER TRUST ONE, VANIA
CHAKER, an individual and as trustee of
VANIA CHAKER TRUST ONE,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:16-CV-02186-WQH-MD
Judge: Hon. William Q. Hayes
Courtroom: 14B
Magistrate: Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
Courtroom: 11th
Floor
OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT
DARREN D. CHAKER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM OF
RELATED CASES [CivLR 40.1]
Complaint Filed: August 29, 2016
[PER CHAMBERS ORDER, NO
ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS
ORDERED BY COURT]
Defendant, DARREN D. CHAKER, individually and as trustee of PLATINUM
HOLDINGS GROUP TRUST, dba COUNTER FORENSICS (“Darren”), submits this
Objection to the unfounded assertion by Plaintiffs SCOTT A. MCMILLAN,
(“McMillan”) and THE MCMILLAN LAW FIRM, APC’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
that the above-captioned case is “related” to a previously filed proceeding captioned
United States v. Chaker, Docket No. 3:15-cr-07012-LAB. (See Doc. No. 1-1, p. 1,
Section VIII.)
Case 3:16-cv-02186-WQH-MDD Document 82 Filed 08/18/17 PageID.3509 Page 1 of 5

2. 1
OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT DARREN D. CHAKER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM OF RELATED CASES [CivLR 40.1]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Complaint in this case asserts three causes of action: two “RICO” claims
along with a “civil extortion” claim. As set forth in the pending Motion to Dismiss and
Motion to Strike (Doc. Nos. 55-56), these causes of action are meritless and fail to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In the meantime, Darren’s Objection herein is filed to address the Plaintiffs’
improper characterization of the aforementioned prior proceeding as “related.” As set
forth in the Local Civil Rules, “[a]n action or proceeding is related to another action or
proceeding where both of them:”
“1. Involve some of the same parties and are based on the same
or similar claims, or
2. Involve the same property, transaction, patent, trademark, or
event, or
3. Involve substantially the same facts and the same questions
of law.” (CivLR 40.1(g).)
If any or all of these factors are present (which they are not), counsel has specific
obligations to the Court and opposing counsel:
“Whenever counsel has reason to believe that a pending action or
proceeding on file or about to be filed is related to another pending
action or proceeding on file in this or any other federal or state
court (whether pending, dismissed, or otherwise terminated),
counsel must promptly file and serve on all known parties to each
related action or proceeding a notice of related case, stating the
title, number and filing date of each action or proceeding believed
to be related, together with a brief statement of their relationship
and the reasons why assignment to a single district judge is or is
not likely to effect a saving of judicial effort and other economies.
The clerk will promptly notify the court of such filing. This is a
continuing duty that applies not only when counsel files a case
with knowledge of a related action or proceeding but also applies
after the date of filing whenever counsel learns of a related action
or proceeding.” (CivLR 40.1(f) (emphasis added).)
Although this case has been pending for nearly a year, other than checking a box
on the Civil Cover Sheet, Plaintiffs’ counsel has failed to fulfill his responsibilities
regarding the filing of a Notice of Related Cases. Notably, Plaintiffs’ counsel has failed
to provide the requisite statement of “relationship” or provide any of the other pertinent
information required by CivLR 40.1. The purportedly related case, which originated in
the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (Docket No. 4:12-cr-00168) before
Case 3:16-cv-02186-WQH-MDD Document 82 Filed 08/18/17 PageID.3510 Page 2 of 5

3. 2
OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT DARREN D. CHAKER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM OF RELATED CASES [CivLR 40.1]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
being transferred to this district for monitoring, arose out of a Texas real estate claim and
involves none of the same (alleged) facts as the instant case. Indeed, notwithstanding
Plaintiffs’ gratuitous inclusion of allegations regarding such case, the Texas case has
absolutely nothing to do with Plaintiffs’ instant RICO and extortion claims. (See
Complaint (Doc. No. 1), ¶¶ 23d-f, 24; First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 21) ¶¶ 23d-f,
24.)
Accordingly, this Court should deny Plaintiffs’ claim of “related cases” both
because the other identified case is in fact unrelated and due to Plaintiffs’ failure to
comply with Local Rules regarding a Notice of Related Cases. In addition, Plaintiffs’
counsel’s failure to comply with their obligations regarding a Notice of Related Cases is
sanctionable. (See CivLR 83.1(a)1
.) Moreover, Plaintiffs’ unsubstantiated claim of
related cases is nothing more than an ill-conceived attempt to impugn Darren’s
reputation (by referencing a wholly unrelated criminal proceeding) that improperly
“degrades or impugns the integrity of the court or in any manner interferes with the
administration of justice within the Court.” (CivLR 83.4(b).) As a result, this Court can
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
1
“Failure of counsel or of any party to comply with these rules, with the Federal
Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, or with any order of the court may be grounds for
imposition by the court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within
the inherent power of the court, including, without limitation, dismissal of any actions,
entry of default, finding of contempt, imposition of monetary sanctions or attorneys'
fees and costs, and other lesser sanctions.” (CivLR 83.1(a).)
Case 3:16-cv-02186-WQH-MDD Document 82 Filed 08/18/17 PageID.3511 Page 3 of 5

4. 3
OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT DARREN D. CHAKER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM OF RELATED CASES [CivLR 40.1]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
initiate disciplinary and/or contempt proceedings against Plaintiffs’ counsel and/or
impose other appropriate sanctions. (CivLR 83.5(a)2
.)
DATED: August 18, 2017 Respectfully Submitted,
SULLIVAN, KRIEGER, TRUONG,
SPAGNOLA & KLAUSNER, LLP
By: /s/Eliot F. Krieger
Eliot F. Krieger, SBN 159647
EKrieger@SKTLawyers.com
Attorneys for Defendant DARREN D. CHAKER
individually, and as trustee of PLATINUM
HOLDINGS GROUP TRUST, dba COUNTER
FORENSICS
2
“In the event any attorney engages in conduct which may warrant discipline or
other sanctions, the court or any judge may, in addition to initiating proceedings for
contempt under Title 18 U.S.C. and Rule 42, Fed. R. Crim.P., or imposing other
appropriate sanctions, refer the matter to the disciplinary body of any court before
which the attorney has been admitted to practice.” (CivLR 83.5(a).)
Case 3:16-cv-02186-WQH-MDD Document 82 Filed 08/18/17 PageID.3512 Page 4 of 5

5. 4
OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT DARREN D. CHAKER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM OF RELATED CASES [CivLR 40.1]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 18th day of August 2017, I filed the foregoing document with
the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court, Southern District of
California by using the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send notifications of such
filing to all counsel of record.
/s/ Eliot F. Krieger
Eliot F. Krieger
Case 3:16-cv-02186-WQH-MDD Document 82 Filed 08/18/17 PageID.3513 Page 5 of 5