Last Updated: Sept. 17, 2015
Alphabetical listing of case name abbreviations used in timeline, with full case captions.
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z
-A-
Atigeo Litigation | Atigeo v. Offshore Ltd
Atiego LLC, et al v. OffShore Limited D, et al, No. 2:13-cv-01694-JLR (W.D. Wash., filed Jul. 15, 2013) (RECAP).
Summary: Ategio LLC and Michael Sandoval sue Montgomery and others, and others, in California Federal Court, claiming trademark infringement, cybersquatting and defamation.
The timeline includes details of these proceedings beginning July 15,2013.
Resolution: Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss this case, without prejudice, after Montgomery takes down the offending websites and in light of his apparent medical and physical condition. See June 24, 2014 (motion for dismissal);Aug. 5, 2014 (dismissal).
Other Notes: This case was originally filed in the Central District, California Federal Court. See Atiego LLC, et al v. OffShore Limited D, et al, No. 5:13-cv-1243-CAS-DTB. It was transferred to W.D. Washington on Sept. 12, 2013. See Atiego v. Offshore Ltd., ECF 19.
-B-
Blixseth v YMC
Timothy Blixseth v. Marc Kirschner as Trustee of the Yellowstone Club Liquidating Trust, No 09-00014-RBK (Bankr. D. Mont.)
RECAP of Case Docket
Blixseth v YMC Appeal
Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, No. 12-35986 (9th Cir.).
-C-
-D-
Desert Palace v. Montgomery
Desert Palace, Inc. v. Montgomery, No. 2:10-ap-01304-BB (Bankr. C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 26, 2009).
Summary: Desert Palace (Caesar's Palace) filed a complaint in Montgomery's bankruptcy proceedings, seeking denial of discharge for "willful and malicious injury" arising from $1MM in "bad checks" from Montgomery.
The timeline includes details of the proceedings beginning Sept. 26, 2009.
Resolution: The case is dismissed on Dec. 3, 2011, shortly after the parties participated in a mediation session (that was scheduled at the parties' request).
-E-
eTreppid v.Montgomery | eTreppid State Proceedings
eTreppid v. Montgomery et al, No. 3:06-cv-00145-PMP-VPC (D. Nev. filed in state court Jan. 19, 2006; removed to federal court Mar. 20, 2006) (RECAP).
Summary: eTreppid filed suit against Montgomery seeking an injunction requiring him to return eTreppid property and prohibiting him from misappropriating eTreppid's trade secrets. The complaint was amended a few times, adding additional parties and additional claims.
As noted below, during the course of these proceedings, Montgomery was sanctioned for committing perjury. Motions seeking additional findings of perjury were left unresolved when the case settled and was dismissed.
The timeline includes details of the proceedings beginning Jan. 19, 2006.
Resolution: See Montgomery v. eTreppid, below.
Other Notes: On Jan. 19, 2006, this case was filed in Nevada State Court (Washoe County). eTreppid Technologies, Inc. v. Dennis Montgomery, No. CV06-00114 (Nev. Dist. Ct. Washoe County). Documents are as later added to the record of Montgomery v. eTreppid (ECF 644). The state proceeding pleadings are identified in the timeline as eTreppid State Proceedings. The state court record of proceedings was added to the Montgomery v. eTreppid docket at ECF 644. These records are available as follows:
ECF 644-2 through ECF 644-10: Pleadings
ECF 644-11 through ECF 644-18: Feb. 7, 2006 Preliminary Injunction Hearing Exhibits
ECF 644-19 & ECF 644-20: Feb. 7, 2006 Hearing Transcript Vol. I.
ECF 644-21 & ECF 644-22: Feb. 7, 2006 Hearing Transcript Vol. II.
On Jan. 25, 2006, this case was removed to Federal Court. See ETreppid et al v. Montgomery et al, No. 3:06-cv-00041-HDM-RAM, ECF 1 (D. Nev. Jan. 25, 2006), but it was promptly remanded back down to state court. Id. ECF 13 (Jan. 31, 2006).
On Mar. 20, 2006, this case was removed to Federal Court. See eTreppid v. Montgomery et al, No. 3:06-cv-00145-PMP-VPC (D. Nev.). These proceedings are identified as eTreppid v. Montgomery on the timeline.
On Mar. 15, 2007, this case was consolidated with Montgomery v. eTreppid, No. No. 3:06-CV-00056-PMP-VPC. The consolidated proceedings are identified as Montgomery v. eTreppid. See infra.
-F-
Flynn v. Liner Grode
Flynn v. Liner Grode Stein Yankelevitz Sunshine Regenstreif & Taylor LLP et al, No. 3:09-cv-00422-PMP-RAM (D. Nev.)
Flynn v. Montgomery
Flynn v. Montgomery, No. 2:10-ap-01305-BB (Bankr. C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 28, 2009).
Summary: Michael Flynn filed a complaint in Montgomery's bankruptcy proceedings, seeking denial of discharge for a variety of reasons.
The timeline includes details of the proceedings beginning Sept. 28, 2009.
Resolution: On Dec. 27, 2011, the Court grants Flynn's Motion for Summary Judgement against Dennis Montgomery for denial of discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(5) (i.e., for failure to explain satisfactorily the loss of assets or deficiency of assets to meet the debtor’s liabilities).
On Oct.28, 2013, the court dismissed claims against Brenda Montgomery per the parties' stipulation. The case was closed Jan. 16, 2014.
Flynn v. Montgomery Writ
Flynn v. Montgomery et al, No. 2:15-mc-00032-RSL (W.D. Wash., filed Mar. 13, 2015) (RECAP).
Summary: Michael Flynn filed for a Writ of Assistance in evicting Montgomery from the Yarrow Point, Washington house.
The timeline includes details of the proceedings beginning Mar. 17, 2015.
Resolution: The Writs are successfully served by US Marshals on Apr. 2, 2015.
Other Notes: Flynn purchased this home (and all other saleable assets) in the Montgomery bankruptcy proceedings.
Flynn v. NV Mortgage
Flynn, et al. v. NV Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv-00360 (W.D. Wash., filed Feb. 27, 2013) (RECAP).
Summary: Flynn (as current owner of property) and Dennis and Brenda Montgomery (as the mortgagees) file suit against NV Mortgage, Inc. and related entities "for misconduct related to Defendants’ origination and servicing of the Montgomerys’ single-family residential mortgage" on the Yarrow Point home. The Complaint alleges a variety of actions, including violations of the Consumer Protection Act, RICO allegations, as well as Negligent or Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
Details of these proceedings are currently under construction and will be added to the timeline soon.
Resolution: The case was dismissed Feb. 18, 2015, per a confidential settlement agreement.
Friendly Capital v. Montgomery | Friendly Capital Litigation
Friendly Capital Partnership v. Montgomery et al, No. 3:07-cv-00250-PMP-VPC (D. Nev., removed May 25, 2007) (RECAP).
Summary: Dennis Montgomery was a defendant in this action alleging that he (and Brenda Montgomery/The Montgomery Family Trust) defaulted on their on their obligation to repay $1,350,493.82 pursuant to a promissory note (as amended). Montgomery also filed counterclaims in this action, alleging a variety of claims including fraud and breach of contract.
This case was originally filed on Apr. 23, 2007 in Nevada State Court. See Friendly Capital Partners LP v. Montgomery et al, No. CY07 00914 (Nev. 2nd Dist.). On May 25, 2007 it was removed to federal court.
Details of these proceedings from May 25, 2007 through through early 2008 have been added to the timeline. The remaining entries are under construction and will be added as they are completed.
Resolution: The case was dismissed Aug. 23, 2010. The dismissal order indicates the dismissal is by decision of the court, but neither the dismissal order nor judgment indicate whether the case is dismissed with prejudice.
-G-
-H-
-I-
In re Dennis Montgomery | Montgomery Bankruptcy Proceedings
In re Dennis Lee Montgomery and Brenda Kathleen Montgomery, No. 2:10-bk-18510-BB (C.D. Cal. Bankr. June 26, 2009).
Summary: Montgomery and his wife filed for voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy on June 26, 2009.
The timeline includes details of the proceedings beginning June 26, 2009.
Resolution: On Dec. 27, 2011, the court issued an order denying discharge with respect to Dennis Montgomery.On June 2, 2014, the court issued discharge of debtor Brenda Montgomery. On Aug. 1, 2014, the Trustee filed his Final Account on and the case was closed.
Other Notes: See also the September 2009 adversary proceedings filed in this case, infra.
In re Dennis Montgomery | Montgomery Tax Litigation
See Montgomery v. IRS, below.
In re Arpaio and Sheridan
In re Arpaio and Sheridan, No. 15-72440 (9th Cir. docketed Aug. 7, 2015).
In re Yellowstone Mountain Club
In re Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, et al., Case No. 08-61570-11 (Bankr. D. Mont.)
RECAP of case docket
In the Matter of the Search of 12720 Buckthorne Lane
See Search Case, below
-J-
-K-
Klayman v Obama
Klayman v. Obama et al, No. 1:13-cv-00851-RJL (D.D.C.).
-L-
-M-
Melendres
Melendres, et al. v. Arpaio, et al, No. 2:07-cv-02513-GMS (D. Ariz.)
Montgomery v. ACLU | ACLU Litigation
Montgomery v. American Civil Liberties Union et al, No. 1:15-cv-22452-KMM (S.D. Fla., filed June 30, 2015) (RECAP).
Summary: Montgomery filed suit against ACLU-related entities on June 30, 2015, alleging, among other things, defamation, breach of fiduciary duty, and professional malpractice, after an attorney representing plaintiffs in the Arizona Melendres v. Arpaio litigation was quoted in the New York Times as saying that Arpaio “hired a person previously found to be a con man.”
The timeline includes details of these proceedings beginning June 30, 2015.
Resolution: The case is pending.
Montgomery v. eTreppid
Montgomery et al v. eTreppid et al, No. 3:06-cv-00056-PMP-VPC (D. Nev., filed Jan. 31, 2006) (RECAP).
Summary: Shortly after eTreppid obtained a temporary restraining order against Montgomery (see eTreppid v. Montgomery, supra), Montgomery countered by filing suit against eTreppid et al in federal court, alleging a myriad of claims including copyright infringement, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, breach of contract, etc.
During the course of these proceedings, Montgomery was sanctioned for committing perjury. Motions seeking additional findings of perjury were left unresolved when the case settled and was dismissed.
The timeline includes details of these proceedings beginning Jan. 31, 2006.
Resolution: In September, 2009 -- shortly after (a) two "show cause" hearings as to why Montgomery should not be held in contempt for (i) failing to produce documents and (ii) failing to produce the source code (a failure for which terminating sanctions were being sought) and and (b) an evidentiary hearing regarding his claims of impropriety by the FBI in connection with the seizure and return of his materials (in which he failed to appear) -- Montgomery and co-defendants) agreed to pay $20,000,000 to settle eTreppid's claims and $5,000,000 to settle Trepp's claims (based on statements Montgomery made about Trepp). In December 2009 – Confessions of Judgment are entered against Montgomery (and his co-settlers).
Montgomery v. Flynn
Montgomery v. Flynn, Case No. BC375335 (Cal. Super. Ct., filed Aug. 3, 2007) (Docket - requires login).
Summary: Montgomery filed this action, seeking to compel return of his client files, despite the ruling from the Nevada Federal Court in Montgomery v. eTreppid, that Flynn was not obligated to do so. The case was removed to federal court – Montgomery v. Flynn et al, No. 2:07-cv-05078 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2008) (RECAP) – but promptly remanded (Aug. 22, 2008).
Details of these proceedings are currently under construction and will be added to the timeline soon.
Resolution: The California court dismisses the case, stating that “[t]his case is before a California court for the transparent purpose of having this court countermand the orders of the Nevada District Court. California has no interest in doing so.
Montgomery v. IRS
In re Dennis L. Montgomery & Brenda K. Montgomery, No. 009008-09 (U.S. Tax Court, filed Apr. 4, 2009) (Docket).
Summary: This matter was filed before Montgomery’s June 2009 bankruptcy, then stayed in light of the bankruptcy Sept. 10, 2014. Montgomery's Bankruptcy schedules indicated IRS claims of $ 203,000 (2005-06 Tax Year); $ 127,406 (2007 Tax Year); and $ 213,457 (2008 Tax Year).
While the petition is not publicly available, it appears from available documents that Montgomery seeks relief from tax liability on the basis that his tax documents were “seized and in part destroyed by criminal investigators acting under an improvidently granted warrant.” If so, such a claim would appear to be in direct violation of the stipulation Montgomery entered into with the FBI on Oct. 2, 2008 – after an evidentiary hearing arising from similar claims made by Montgomery.
The timeline includes some procedural details of these proceedings; additional details of these proceedings are currently under construction and will be added to the timeline soon.
Resolution: This case is still pending.
Montgomery Melendres Appeal I
Melendres et al v. Arpaio and Putative Intervener Dennis Montgomery, No. 15-16440 (9th Cir. docketed July 14, 2015).
Summary: Montgomery appeals Judge Snow’s order denying Jonathan Moseley'’s motion for admission pro hac vice (because Moseley is conflicted out). He purports to also appeal a “denial” of the motions (a) to intervene and (b) recuse Judge Snow, but those motions were stricken, not denied.
The timeline includes details of these proceedings beginning July 14, 2015.
Resolution: The appeal remains pending.
Montgomery Melendres Appeal II
Melendres et al v. Arpaio and Putative Intervener Dennis Montgomery, No. 15-16626 (9th Cir. docketed Aug. 12, 2015).
Summary: Montgomery appeals Judge Snow’s order denying Larry Klayman’s motion for admission pro hac vice (because Klayman is conflicted out). Montgomery purports to also appeal a “denial” of the motions (a) to intervene and (b) recuse Judge Snow, but those motions were stricken, not denied.
The timeline includes details of these proceedings beginning Aug. 12, 2015.
Resolution: The appeal remains pending.
Montgomery Melendres Mandamus Petition
In re: Dennis Montgomery, No. 15-71433 (9th Cir. docketed May 11, 2015).
Summary: Montgomery filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Ninth Circuit after Federal District Judge Snow denied his attorney’s motion for admittance pro hac vice, and struck his motion to intervene in the Melendres v. Arpaio litigation. Montgomery sought a writ ordering Judge Snow’s disqualification.
The timeline includes details of these proceedings beginning May 11, 2015.
Resolution: The Petition was promptly denied on May 12, 2015.
Montgomery v. Risen | Risen Litigation
Montgomery v Risen et al, No. 1:15-cv-20782-JEM (S.D. Fla., filed Feb. 24, 2015) (RECAP)..
Summary: Montgomery filed suit against James Risen, author of Pay Any Price: Greed, Power, and Endless War, and the book’s publishers, alleging various defamation claims.
The timeline includes details of these proceedings beginning Feb. 24, 2015.
Resolution: This case is pending.
Montgomery v Risen - California Proceedings
Montgomery v. Risen, No. #: 3:15-cv-02035-AJB-JLB (S.D. Cal., docketed Sept. 11, 2015.
Summary: Montgomery seeks to compel compliance with a subpoena allegedly served on Montgomery's former attorney Michael Flynn.
Resolution: Court denied motion to compel on Oct. 30, 2015 for a variety of reasons. See Timeline - Oct. 30, 2015.
-N-
Nevada v. Montgomery | Criminal Case
State of Nevada vs Dennis Montgomery, No. C-10-268764-1 (Nev. Super. Ct. Clark County, filed Nov. 3, 2010) (Docket).
Summary: This case arose from Montgomery’s alleged passing bad checks at Ceasar’s Palace on Sept.28, 2008. Montgomery was charged with six felony counts including (a) one count of drawing and passing a check without sufficient funds in drawee bank with intent to defraud (b) two felony theft counts; (c) two nonsufficient funds/check counts; and (d) one count of obtaining money under false pretenses.
The timeline includes details of these proceedings beginning Nov. 3, 2010.
Resolution: On Jan. 9, 2014, five of the charges are dropped (the day after the parties reported that there was an offer on the table). The remaining count - count of drawing and passing a check without sufficient funds in drawee bank with intent to defraud – is still pending.
-O-
-P-
Page v. 3Net Systems
Penne M. Page v 3Net Systems, Inc., et al, No. CV536169 (Cal. Super. Ct, Sacramento, filed Sept. 17, 1993).
Summary: Dennis Montgomery is a defendant in this case, which alleges sexual harassment and retaliation. William Manak is co-defendant.
Counsel on case: Michael A. Bishop (defense); Judy H. Hersher (defense); Mark R. Kassenbrock (defense); Christopher H. Whelan (plaintiff).
This case will be the subject of an important published decision by the California Court of Appeals decision on Jan. 26, 1995 regarding individual supervisor liability for sexual harassment and retaliation. See Page v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, 31 Cal.App.4th 1206, 31 Cal.App.4th 1206, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 529 (Cal. App. 3rd Dist. 1995), pet. for rev. denied, No. S045292 (Cal. Mar. 30, 1995); see also Court of Appeals (3rd Dist.) Online Docket | California Supreme Court Docket.
Further details currently unavailable.
-Q-
Qui Tam Litigation
USA ex rel. Dennis Montgomery v. Warren Trepp, et al, No. 3:06-cv-00691-PMP-VP (D. Nev., filed Dec. 14, 2006) (RECAP).
Summary: Montgomery brought this False Claims Act case against Warran Trepp, Governor Jim Gibbons, and several others, alleging fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud “through government defense contracts, and to gain control and ownership of valuable software exclusively owned, controlled, and solely possessed by relator Dennis Montgomery used on said contracts.”
The timeline includes details of these proceedings beginning Dec. 14, 2006.
Resolution: The United States declined intervention on July 13, 2009. The Trustee in Montgomery’s bankruptcy proceedings sought (and obtained) permission to abandon the claim in March 2010. The case was dismissed on March 24, 2010.
-R-
-S-
Search Case
Search Case (FBI Search & Seizure)
In the Matter of the Search of 12720 Buckthorne Lane, No. 3:06-cv-00263-PMP-VPC (D. Nev., opened Feb. 28, 2006) (RECAP).
Summary: After an Air Force Investigation and an FBI investigation, the FBI obtained sealed search warrants on Feb. 26 and Mar. 3, 2006 on the basis that (a) Montgomery had stolen eTreppid property and improperly removed classified/national defense information.
Thereafter, Montgomery filed a series of motions seeking to have the search warrants unsealed and return of his property, asserting that Montgomery had not taken any eTreppid property; nor had he improperly taken any classified information. This case was rather inextricably intertwined with the two pending civil cases – eTreppid v. Montgomery and Montgomery v. eTreppid.
The timeline includes details of these proceedings beginning Feb. 28, 2006.
Resolution: On Nov. 28, 2006, the Magistrate Judge ordered the affidavits unsealed and the property returned to Montgomery. In so holding, the Court found (in part) that the United States had failed to no make any “showing whatsoever that probable cause still exists to justify keeping the seized material based on [probable cause that Montgomery violated 18 U.S.C. § 793( e ), unlawful retention of national defense information].” Nor did the United States “demonstrate that probable cause exists to justify the issuance of the search warrants in this case based on a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1832, theft of trade secrets.” (Conclusion, Opinion at 31-32.)
The District Court affirmed this order on Mar. 19, 2007. In so doing, it specifically held that any seized property, the ownership of which is disputed by the parties in the Montgomery v. eTreppid litigation remains subject to the Preliminary Injunction entered on Feb. 8, 2006. (Order at 15.)
In other words, while the property taken from Montgomery must be returned to him, proper ownership of that property was not resolved and remained very much in dispute (despite Montgomery’s 2015 contentions that the Court found that the property belonged to Montgomery).
Snow v BLX Group
Snow et al v. BLX Group, Inc. et al, No. 09-00018 (Bankr. D. Mont.)
-T-
-U-
USA ex rel. Montgomery v. Trepp et al
See Qui Tam Litigation, above.
-V-
-W-
-X-
-Y-
YMC v Offshore Ltd
Yellowstone Mountain Club LLC v. Offshore Limited D and PCI, No. D2013-0097 (WIPO, Apr. 12, 2013) - Administrative Panel Decision (html) (Doc)
Comments