Cases By Date

Last Updated: Jan. 15, 2016

	1970s
	↓
	1976	Dennis Lee Montgomery was a party in Case No. 260401, filed on April 7, 1976 in California’s Sacramento Superior Court. Other persons/parties:  Brenda K. Montgomery; Robert E. Lee Holmes.  Further details currently unavailable.
	↓
	1980s
	↓
Per Montgomery, in 1981 or 82, he formed a company, Computermate, the business of which was to “write medical software for medical instrumentation."	1981
	↓
Per Montgomery, Computermate ceased doing business in 1985. He thinks Computermate was sold, but does not remember to whom.   In 1985 or 86, he formed Barrett Labs   There, he continued to use the anomaly detection software first developed at Computermate. .	1985	“Dennis Montgomery” was a party in Case No. 335806 filed Dec. 24, 1985 in California’s Sacramento Superior Court. Other persons/parties:  Robert S. Losey and Source Data Products Inc.  Further details (including whether this is the same Dennis Montgomery) currently unavailable.
	↓
Per Montgomery, he begins to work for 3Net Systems in 1987.	1987	Dennis L. Montgomery was a party in Case No. 351018, filed May 26, 1987 in California’s Sacramento Superior Court. Other persons/parties:  The Henley Group, Inc. Further details currently unavailable.
	↓
		Fisher Scientific Co v. Barrett Laboratories, et al, No. 2:1987-cv-01409 (C.D. Cal.) (filed Oct. 5, 1987). Summary: Dennis L. Montgomery was a named defendant in this case, apparently arising from alleged breach of contract. William T. Manak is a co-defendant. The case was closed Jan. 13, 1989 (the same day that Barrett Lab v. Lacrosse, infra, was closed). Further details currently unavailable.
	↓
		Computermate Inc. and “Barrett Labs” are parties to Case No. 356273, filed Nov. 11, 1987 in in California’s Sacramento Superior Court. Other parties:  Prospect North Ltd. Further details currently unavailable.
	↓
	1988	Barrett Lab, et al v. Lacrosse, et al, No. 2:1988-cv-00950 (C.D. Cal.) (filed July 29, 1998). Summary: Dennis L. Montgomery was a plaintiff in this case, which apparently asserts a RICO cause of action. William A. Manak is a co-plaintiff. Defendants included: Allied Health & Science; Allied Health Adn Sc; Fisher Scientific Co; Fisher Scientific Gr Inc; Fisher Scientific Lt; Henley Group, Inc.; Instrumentation Lab); John A. Jenkins; Kenneth L. Lacrosse; Donald L. MacSuga; Richard Sutton; Harold F. Voege; Terry F. Walker. The case was closed Jan. 13, 1989 (same day that Scientific Co v. Barrett Laboratories, supra, was closed). Further details currently unavailable.
	↓
	1989	“Dennis L. Montgomery” was a party in Case No. 864319, filed June 26, 1989 in California’s Sacramento Superior Court. Summary: Other persons/parties listed in connection with the case:  Theresa M. Montgomery. Further details currently unavailable.
	↓
		Joaquine Espinoza v. Dennis Montgomery, No. CV510835 (Cal. Super. Ct, Sacramento, filed Oct. 18, 1989). Summary: A "Dennis Montgomery" was the defendant in this case, which apparently was a personal injury/auto accident case. Counsel on case: Mark E. Otto (defense); Daniel L. Sullivan (plaintiff) Further details (including whether this is the same Dennis Montgomery) currently unavailable.
	↓
	1990s
	↓
	1991	Tech Data Corporation v. Barrett Laboratories, Inc., Case No. CV518792 (Cal. Super. Ct, Sacramento, filed Feb. 13, 1991). Summary: Barrett Laboratories was a defendant in this case, which was an "other civil" case. No other known parties. Further details currently unavailable.
	↓
		William T. Manak, et al v. Berger & Montague, P.C., No. CV519200 (Cal. Super. Ct, Sacramento, filed Mar. 6, 1991). Summary: Montgomery was a named plaintiff in this case, which apparently was a breach of contract case. Other parties:  Barrett Laboratories, Inc. (co-plaintiff); William T Manak (co-plaintiff); and Berger & Montague PC (defendant). The case was removed to Federal Court - Manak, et al v. Berger & Montague, No. 2:91-cv-00423-WBS (C.D.  Cal. Apr. 10, 1991), but promptly remanded back to state court.  Further details currently unavailable.
	↓
	1992	Barrett Laboratories, Inc. was a party in Case No. T01893 (Cal. Super. Ct, Sacramento, filed June 26, 1992). Summary: Other parties/persons associated with case: J.H. Brower, County of Sacramento, Chun M. Dodge, Edwin S. Sarsfield, John J. Wilson. Further details currently unavailable.
	↓
Per Montgomery, he worked as a self-employed consultant from 1993 to 1998.	1993	Penne M. Page v. 3Net Systems, Inc., No. 535526 (Cal. Super. Ct, Sacramento, filed Aug. 12, 1993). Summary: Dennis Montgomery was a defendant in this case, which was an "other civil" case. William Manak was a co-defendant. Further details currently unavailable.
	↓
		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.  According to 3Net Systems' SEC filings, the case is resolved when 3Net and, apparently, Dennis Montgomery and/or their insurers make a cash settlement payment to Page.  See May 27, 1995.
Per Montgomery, Montgomery, he did some consulting work for Kaiser in 1994.	1994
	↓
	1995	Dennis Montgomery v. 3Net Systems, Inc. et al, No. 95AS03191 (Cal. Super. Ct, Sacramento, filed June 12, 1995). Summary: Montgomery was plaintiff in this "other civil" case. Defendants: James W. Cameron, Jr.; Jeffrey G. Edwards; Gerald Faust; Russell Harrison; Edward Lammerding; Morgan Stanley & Co; Counsel on case:  Paige R. Barnes (defense); Thomas H. Carlson (defense); Thomas J. Welsh (defense) Richard C. Spencer (plaintiff) See June 12, 1995 and thereafter for details of this case as reported in 3Net System's later SEC filings.  In short, Montgomery loses - and has to pay 3Net Systems costs and fees incurred in the required arbitration.
	↓
	1996	Dennis Montgomery v. Law Offices of Michael Flaherty, et al, No. 96AS06371, (Cal. Super. Ct, Sacramento, filed Nov. 18, 1996). Summary: Montgomery was plaintiff in this nonmedical malpractice case. Other parties (all defendants):  Michael Flaherty; Michael Kvarme; George L. O’Connell; Downey, Brand, Seymour & Rohwer*; and Flaherty & Serlin. Counsel on the case: Edward T. Clifford (defense); Robert S. McClay (defense); Jason L. Sommer (defense); Pamela J. Stevens (plaintiff); Nikolai Tehin (plaintiff); James W. Rushford (attorney for lien claimant). Further details currently unavailable. *Note:  Defendant Downey Brand Seymour & Rohwer (Judy H. Hersher) was Montgomery’s counsel on the appeal of Penne v. 3Net Systems.
	↓
	1997	Textron Financial Corporation v. Michael S. Bensaid, Case No. RIC292592 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento, filed Feb. 10, 1997. Summary: A "Dennis Montgomery," working with Auto Products Network is brought in as a cross-defendant. Per the cross complaint Bensaid was sold "an inferior computer system." Resolution: Under review; appears that claims were dismissed. Further information under review..
	↓↓
Montgomery begins working for eTreppid in September 1998.	1998
	↓
	2004
	↓
	July 2004	Gianna G. Santistevan v  Dennis L. Montgomery, Case No.  FV04-02745 (Nev. 2nd Dist., filed Jul. 16, 2004) Summary:  Dennis L. Montgomery was the named defendant in this action - a “Req Temporary Protective Order.” The TRO (for protection against domestic violence) was granted on July 16, 2004.  The TRO was confirmed on Aug. 27 ("order confirming temporary order for protection against domestic violence, order to compensate applicant; order granting request for private hearing and denying request to seal file"). Resolution:  The order to compensate applicant was vacated on Oct. 25, 2004 and the TRO was dissolved on Sept. 20, 2005.  Montgomery’s request to seal the file was denied on Nov. 8, 2005. Further information currently unavailable.
	2006
	↓
	January 2006	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 - 10: Pleadings  ECF 644-11 - 18: Feb. 7, 2006 Preliminary Injunction Hearing Exhibits ECF 644-19 & 20:  Feb. 7, 2006 Hearing Transcript Vol. I. ECF 644-21 & 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 in the Timeline On Mar. 15, 2007, this case was consolidated with Montgomery v. eTreppid, No. 3:06-CV-00056-PMP-VPC (D. Nev.). The consolidated proceedings are identified as Montgomery v. eTreppid.
	↓
		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 were entered against Montgomery (and his co-settlers).
	↓
	February 2006	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 was 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).
	↓
Montgomery was hired by Opspring LLC as Chief Technology Officer on or about Apr. 5, 2006.	April 2006
	↓
	December 2006	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.
	↓
	2007
	↓
	January 2007	Kelkris Assoc., Inc., et al v. Dennis Lee Montgomery et al, No. 07AM00421 (Cal. Super. Ct, Sacramento, filed Jan. 16, 2007). Montgomery was defendant in this case. Other Parties:  Credit Bureau Associates (co-plaintiff) Counsel on the case:  Terry A. Duree (attorney for plaintiffs) Further details currently unavailable.
	↓
In April 2007, Opspring was dissolved per agreement between Edra Blixseth and Michael Sandoval of Atigeo and Blxware was formed. Montgomery thereafter worked for Blxware.	April 2007	Friendly Capital v. Montgomery 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 was by decision of the court, but neither the dismissal order nor judgment indicate whether the case was dismissed with prejudice.
	↓
	August 2007	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.
	September 2007	Blixseth v. Blixseth, No. RIDIND91152 (Cal. Super. Ct. Sacramento, amended complaitn filed Sept. 17, 2007) Summary: Dennis Montgomery is named as a Real Party in Interest in these marriage dissolution proceedings. He filed at least two declarations in the proceedings (December 2012 and January 2013). Resolution: The proceeding is still pending.
	↓
	2008
	↓
	2009
	April 2009	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 was dismissed on Jan. 14, 2016.
	↓
	May 2009	Minghong Do v. Dennis Lee Montgomery, No. 34-2009-00045656-CU-PA-GDS, filed May 19, 2009, in California’s Sacramento Superior Court. Montgomery was defendant in this case, which apparently was a personal injury/auto accident case. The case was dismissed Aug. 3, 2009, at plaintiff’s request. Further details currently unavailable.
	↓
	June 2009	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.
	↓
Montgomery remains employed at Blxware, per filings in the bankruptcy proceeding.	July 2009
	↓
	August 2009	Porsche Financial Services v. Dennis Montgomery, No. RIC533720 (Cal. Super. Ct. Riverside, filed Aug. 16, 2009) Summary:  Appears to be suit for repossession of porsche for nompayments. Brenda Montgomery is co-defendant. Resolution: Case dismissed - at plaintiff's request - Aug. 26, 2009.
	↓
	September 2009	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 was dismissed on Dec. 3, 2011, shortly after the parties participated in a mediation session (that was scheduled at the parties' request).
	↓
		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.
	↓
	2010
	↓
	November 2010	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 six charges were 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.
	↓
	2011
	↓
Edra Blixseth emerges from bankruptcy and begins working again with Montgomery.	February 2011
	↓
	2012
Montgomery has apparently formed PCI (Pacific Coast Innovations) with partners, to market his technology by this time. Edra Blixseth provides some funding for Montgomery between January and June 2012.	January 2012
	↓
Montgomery's new company, PCI, apparently fails. Blixseth stops funding.	June 2012
	↓
	2013
	↓
	February 2013	Flynn v. NW 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.
	↓
	July 2013	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.
	↓
	August 2013	Dennis Montgomery  was a defendant in Case No. 133-18367 (King County Dist. Ct., filed Aug. 15, 2013). Summary: Other Parties included Brenda Montgomery (co-defendant); Renton Collections (plaintiff) Further details currently unavailable.
Montgomery becomes a paid confidential informant for the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, apparently sometime between Sept. 2013 and Jan. 2014.	Fall 2013
	↓
	2014
	↓
	March 2014	Dennis L. Montgomery was a defendant in Case No. 145-11517 (King County Dist. Ct., filed Mar. 3, 2014). Summary: Other parties included Audit & Adjustment Company Inc (plaintiff) Further details currently unavailable.
	↓
	2015
	↓
	February 2015	Montgomery v. Risen Montgomery v Risen et al, No. 1:15-cv-20782-JEM (S.D. Fla., docketed  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. Resolution:   This case is pending.
	↓
	March 2015	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 were 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.
	↓
	May 2015	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. Resolution:  The Petition was promptly denied on May 12, 2015.
	↓
	June 2015	Montgomery v. ACLU Montgomery v. American Civil Liberties Union et al, No. 1:15-cv-22452-KMM (S.D. Fla., docketed 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.”   Resolution:  This case was dismissed on Sept. 25, 2015.
	July 2015	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. Resolution:   The appeal has been consolidated with the Montgomery Melendres Appeal II - and remains pending.
	↓
	August 2015	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. Resolution: The appeal has been consolidated with the Montgomery Melendres Appeal I - and remains pending.
	September 2015	Montgomery v. Risen - S.D. 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; Nov. 5, 2015 (denying motion for reconsideration).
	November 2015	Montgomery v. Risen - C.D. California Proceedings Montgomery v. Risen, No. #: 8:15-mc-00031-CJC-JCG (C.D. Cal., docketed Nov. 12, 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 Dec. 1, 2015, referencing the S.D. Cal. court's prior rulings..
.	N	Montgomery v. S&S - S.D. N.Y. Proceedings Montgomery v. Simon & Schuster et al, No. 1:15-mc-00363-P1 (S.D.N.Y., docketed Nov. 12, 2015). Summary:  Montgomery seeks to compel compliance with subpoenas issued to Simon & Schuster representatives. Resolution:  After production of a limited set of documents, the case was dismissed on Dec. 29, 2015.
	December 2015	Burgyan Discovery Proceedings - W.D. Wash. Proceedings Montgomery v. Risen et al, No. 2:15-cv-01955-JLR (W.D. Wash., docketed Dec. 8, 2015).  Summary:  Risen Defendants seek to compel compliance with subpoenas issued to Montgomery's son-in-law, Istvan Burgyan. Resolution:  This case is still pending.