Gillies v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 907
Attorney Douglas Gillies sued his bank ad seriatim over its foreclosure of property he owned, and defaulted on, in 2009.
The Second Appellate District excoriated Gillies in dicta:
“Gillies has lost three superior court cases which allowed the foreclosure proceedings to go forward. He lost the first two appeals to this court and now loses this third appeal. He lost a federal case in the United States District Court. He lost the appeal from this judgment in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He lost an ’emergency’ petition for relief in the Ninth Circuit. He filed for protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court. He lost there.”
* * *
“As an attorney, Gillies should have some appreciation for the rule of law and his obligation to comply with lawful court orders. ”
It is worth noting that Gillies’ conduct did not rise to the level permitting a vexatious litigant order. Nor does it appear as though Gillies ever actually violated a single court order. Nor did the Court of Appeal perform a traditional res judicata analysis in reaching its conclusion that Gillies’ serial lawsuits, each contesting a different foreclosure proceeding, albeit on the same property, nevertheless sought to vindicate the same primary right.