The Office of Angela Scott lawsuit is a 2023 dispute between the luxury footwear brand’s two 50% co-owners, in which Bui Simon accuses founder Angela Scott of embezzling more than $2.5 million in company funds through unauthorized personal spending and payments to Scott’s husband. The case is pending in Santa Barbara County Superior Court. Scott denies the allegations, and no court has found her liable.
Who Is Suing Whom
The Office of Angela Scott LLC is a Texas limited liability company headquartered in Santa Barbara, California. Under a restated operating agreement signed August 3, 2015, Angela Scott and Bui Simon each hold a 50% interest, with Scott originally serving as sole manager. The agreement required Scott to devote her full business time to the company and required approval from all members before hiring employees, retaining attorneys, or disposing of company assets.1Santa Barbara Superior Court. Tentative Ruling, Case 23CV02376
Simon is the plaintiff. The defendants are Angela Scott; her husband, Scott Milden; and Milden LLC, a California limited liability company where Milden is the sole member and manager.1Santa Barbara Superior Court. Tentative Ruling, Case 23CV02376
What Triggered the Lawsuit
According to Simon’s complaint, the dispute began in the fall of 2022, when Scott approached Simon asking for a $500,000 bonus to put toward a down payment on a house. Simon started reviewing the company’s finances to evaluate the request and, she alleges, discovered that Scott had already been taking far more from the company than Simon knew. Forensic and inventory audits followed, and Simon says those audits uncovered more than $2.5 million in undisclosed compensation and personal expenditures charged to the business.2Santa Barbara Superior Court. Tentative Ruling, Case 23CV03184
On July 19, 2023, Simon removed Scott as manager “for cause,” citing gross negligence and willful misconduct under the operating agreement, and appointed Gene Montesano as the new manager. Montesano was later succeeded by Todd Steele. Scott has disputed the legality of her removal throughout the litigation.2Santa Barbara Superior Court. Tentative Ruling, Case 23CV03184
The Allegations
Simon’s allegations fall into three main categories.
- Personal expenses charged to the company: leasing multiple Porsches for personal use between 2015 and 2023, plus retail shopping and personal travel.
- More than $1 million in company payments to Scott Milden and Milden LLC. Simon alleges Milden was given company credit cards used for personal expenses, was paid as an employee without her approval, and received additional unauthorized payments through Milden LLC.
- Retaining the law firm Brownstein to represent the company in the derivative action without Simon’s consent, which Simon argues violated the operating agreement’s requirement that all members approve attorney hires.
Because the audit was still underway when Simon filed, the complaint noted that the total figure could exceed $2.5 million.3Santa Barbara Superior Court. Tentative Ruling, Case 23CV02376 – Discovery
The Two Cases
Simon filed two related actions in Santa Barbara County Superior Court.
The Derivative Case (23CV02376)
Filed on behalf of the company, the first amended complaint asserts 16 causes of action, including breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion, waste of corporate assets, and violation of California Penal Code section 496, which addresses receipt of stolen property. It also seeks declaratory relief regarding Scott’s removal as manager, an accounting, restitution, and injunctive relief. Simon is seeking restitution of the allegedly misappropriated funds, disgorgement of compensation and bonuses paid to the defendants, and other damages.4Santa Barbara Superior Court. Tentative Ruling, Case 23CV02376 – Causes of Action3Santa Barbara Superior Court. Tentative Ruling, Case 23CV02376 – Discovery
The Direct Case (23CV03184)
The companion case originally asserted nine causes of action, including breach of contract, inducing breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and a request for injunctive relief. On March 13, 2024, the court granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings on causes of action two through nine, finding that most alleged harm to the company rather than to Simon individually and were therefore derivative, not direct. The court denied the motion as to the first cause of action, declaratory relief, and gave Simon leave to amend.2Santa Barbara Superior Court. Tentative Ruling, Case 23CV03184
How the Court Has Ruled So Far
Judge Thomas P. Anderle is presiding over both cases. Several rulings have shaped where things stand.
In March 2024, the court sustained the defendants’ demurrer to the fraud and aiding-and-abetting-fraud claims in the direct case, again with leave to amend, and ordered Simon to file a third amended complaint by July 25, 2024.5Santa Barbara Superior Court. Tentative Ruling, Case 23CV03184 – Demurrer
In the fall of 2024, all three defendants moved for summary judgment in both cases. In a tentative ruling for the November 6, 2024 hearing, the court denied those motions in their entirety. As to Angela Scott, the court found she had failed to meet her initial burden on the statute-of-limitations defense and had not negated essential elements of the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim, identifying “numerous triable issues of material fact.”6Santa Barbara Superior Court. Tentative Ruling, Case 23CV02376 – Summary Judgment The motions filed by Scott Milden and Milden LLC were denied on the same grounds.7Santa Barbara Superior Court. Tentative Ruling, Case 23CV03184 – Summary Judgment
The court also overruled Scott’s evidentiary objections to a forensic accounting expert’s declaration and report, ruling that while a “mediation privilege” protected certain spreadsheets as documents, it did not shield the underlying financial data or the expert’s opinions.6Santa Barbara Superior Court. Tentative Ruling, Case 23CV02376 – Summary Judgment In a separate discovery dispute, the court granted in part Simon’s motion to compel Scott to provide further responses to special interrogatories, ordering compliance by November 27, 2024.8Santa Barbara Superior Court. Tentative Ruling, Case 23CV02376 – Interrogatories
Where the Case Stands
Trial dates were set for late 2024: November 27, 2024 for the direct case (23CV03184) and December 4, 2024 for the derivative case (23CV02376).5Santa Barbara Superior Court. Tentative Ruling, Case 23CV03184 – Demurrer3Santa Barbara Superior Court. Tentative Ruling, Case 23CV02376 – Discovery At a July 2024 hearing, the court said the case “should be tried or settled before the end of this calendar year.” No final judgment, settlement, or award of damages has been reported in the available court records. The defendants have denied the allegations.
The company has since rebranded. What was The Office of Angela Scott now operates as The Office of Us, a change the company attributes to its 15th anniversary and a shift from “the office of one” to “the office of all.”9The Office of Us. About Us The brand’s public materials do not mention the litigation.10The Office of Us. The Office of Us Homepage