dm v aclu # 19-25_declarations in support of # 18_s.d.fla._1-15-cv-22452
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/20/2019 DM v ACLU # 19-25_Declarations in Support of # 18_S.D.fla._1-15-Cv-22452
1/15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 15-cv-22452-KMM
DENNIS MONTGOMERY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNIONFOUNDATION, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________
DECLARATION OF JOSHUA BENDOR IN SUPPORT OFDEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER VENUE
Joshua Bendor declares under penalty of perjury as follows:
1. I am an attorney employed by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of
Arizona, where I have worked for 1 year, and a defendant in this action. I work in Phoenix,
Arizona, and nearly all my litigation is located in the state and federal courts in Arizona.
2. Since I became a member of the Arizona Bar in February 2015, I have been one of the
counsel for the plaintiffs in Melendres v. Arpaio, cv-07-2513, a civil rights suit asserting claims
that Sheriff Arpaio and the department that he runs (the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office) has
violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the plaintiff class. No part of that
litigation has entailed work in Florida, or travel to Florida, or communications to Florida. All
my work on it has been in Arizona, except for appellate proceedings in San Francisco, where the
Ninth Circuit sits.
3. Dennis Montgomery, who is the plaintiff in the present case, is not a party in Melendres,
and I had not heard of him until about 7 years after it was initiated, when his name arose in
Case 1:15-cv-22452-KMM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2015 Page 1 of 2
-
8/20/2019 DM v ACLU # 19-25_Declarations in Support of # 18_S.D.fla._1-15-Cv-22452
2/15
Case 1:15-cv-22452-KMM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2015 Page 2 of 2
connection with a motion for contempt against Sheriff Arpaio filed on January 8 2015 alleging
the Sheriffs failure to comply with the terms of a preliminary injunction entered by the Court.
4. I understand that Mr. Montgomery has laid venue in this case in the Southern District
of
Florida apparently on the theory that he
is
being injured in Florida and that the defendants knew
that he
was
living there when they took the actions complained of. I have understood and
believed Mr. Montgomery to live in Seattle Washington or its environs and have never
believed him to reside in Florida.
5.
None of the allegations about me in the complaint in this action allege that I have taken
any action in or aimed at Florida in connection with Mr. Montgomery and I have not done so.
Nor
have I sought in connection with Mr. Montgomery or any of the allegations lodged in the
Complaint in this action to avail myself of any privileges of doing business with or in Florida.
In fact to the best of my recollection I have never been to Florida.
I declare under penalty
of
perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
August-tf
2015.
Joshua Bendor
2
-
8/20/2019 DM v ACLU # 19-25_Declarations in Support of # 18_S.D.fla._1-15-Cv-22452
3/15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 15-cv-22452-KMM
DENNIS MONTGOMERY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNIONFOUNDATION, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________
DECLARATION OF SUSAN HERMAN IN SUPPORT OFDEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER VENUE
Susan Herman declares under penalty of perjury as follows:
1. I am presently the President of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, which is
a defendant in the above-captioned litigation. As President, I have no supervisory authority over
any ACLU or ACLUF employee except the Executive Director, and no supervisory authority at
all over anyone at ACLU AZ, an autonomous entity. I am a member of the bar of the State of
New York, and hold a chair at Brooklyn Law School, where I am the Centennial Professor of
Law. Prior to becoming President of the ACLU and ACLUF, I had been on the ACLU’s
National Board of Directors for twenty years, and its General Counsel for ten years.
2. Prior to seeing a copy of the Complaint in this action, I had never heard of the plaintiff,
Dennis Montgomery, and never had any interaction or communication with him whatever. Nor
had I ever had any conversation or communication with any others at the ACLU (or the ACLU
of Arizona) about Mr. Montgomery. Nor had I ever been to Florida to meet with him, or
communicated with him in Florida, or taken any action with respect to him aimed at Florida. I
Case 1:15-cv-22452-KMM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2015 Page 1 of 2
-
8/20/2019 DM v ACLU # 19-25_Declarations in Support of # 18_S.D.fla._1-15-Cv-22452
4/15
2
have on occasion travelled to south Florida in connection with raising funds for the ACLU or
ACLUF, or other ACLU matters of internal governance or policy, but none of those trips has
ever involved Mr. Montgomery or related to (or arisen from) the allegations he makes in his
Complaint.
3. Having never heard of Mr. Montgomery, or met him, or discussed him with any
colleagues, I had no knowledge whatever about where he lived.
4. I am not counsel in, or otherwise involved in, the litigation in Arizona that is the focus of
his claims in the above-captioned lawsuit, Melendres v. Arpaio, 2:07-2513 (D. Az.).
5.
I did not speak with Daniel J. Pochoda about the statement that it was reported he made
to a New York Times reporter which is referenced in paragraphs 35 and 37 of the Complaint in
this action, or know that he (or anyone else) would be making that statement. I note that Mr.
Pochoda works for the ACLU Foundation of Arizona, which is a different entity than ACLUF or
the national ACLU organization, and not subject to its (or my) direction or control.
6. None of the allegations about me, in the complaint in this action, allege that I have taken
any action in or aimed at Florida in connection with Mr. Montgomery, and I have not done so.
Nor have I sought, in connection with Mr. Montgomery or any of the allegations lodged in the
Complaint in this action, to avail myself of any privileges of doing business with or in Florida.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
August 3, 2015.
_____________________________Susan Herman
Case 1:15-cv-22452-KMM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2015 Page 2 of 2
-
8/20/2019 DM v ACLU # 19-25_Declarations in Support of # 18_S.D.fla._1-15-Cv-22452
5/15
Case 1:15-cv-22452-KMM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2015 Page 1 of 2
DENNIS MONTGOMERY,
vs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 15-cv-22452-KMM
Plaintiff
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION, et al.,
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL GERMAN IN SUPPORT
OF
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR L CK OF
PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER VENUE
Michael Gennan declares under penalty ofperjury as follows:
1 I am presently a fellow with the Brennan Center for Justice s Liberty and National
Security Program. I live in New York, NY. Prior to joining the Brennan Center in January
2014, I worked the American Civil Liberties Union s Washington Legislative Office, and some
years earlier as a Special Agent
of
the Federal Bureau
of
Investigation, also headquartered in
Washington, D.C. I make this declaration in support of the motion of defendants in the above-
captioned matter to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, recognizing
that this is not the occasion to e litigating the falsity ofvirtually all the various allegations made
against me in the Complaint, and that only venue and jurisdiction, and not the falsity of other
allegations, are the proper subject of this declaration.
2
None
of
the allegations about me in the Complaint, including but not limited to those at
paragraphs 14-20, allege that I have taken any action in or aimed at Florida in c01mection with
Mr. Montgomery, and I have not done so.
-
8/20/2019 DM v ACLU # 19-25_Declarations in Support of # 18_S.D.fla._1-15-Cv-22452
6/15
Case 1:15-cv-22452-KMM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2015 Page 2 of 2
3 Nor have I sought, in connection with Mr. Montgomery or any of the allegations lodged
in the Complaint
in
this action, to avail myself
of
any privileges
of
doing business with or in
Florida. I have never been to Florida to meet with him, or communicated with him in Florida, or
taken any action with respect to him aimed at Florida, or which I imagined might have some
impact in Florida. When I worked for the ACLU s Washington Legislative Office, I traveled to
Miami, Florida
in
2009 to speak at an anti-money laundering conference, and to Orlando, Florida
in 2012 to participate
in
an ACLU conference, but never on any matter involving or related to
Dennis Montgomery.
4 I did speak with Mr. Montgomery some years ago on one or possibly two occasions,
when I was employed y ACLUF s Washington Legislative Office. I was not
in
Florida on any
of
hose occasions, and I understood him to
e in
the western United States (he contacted me
through a 619 area code). During the few times
we
had any contact, I never knew him to be, or
understood him to be,
in
Florida.
5
I never established an attoiney-client relationship with Mr. Montgomery when either
of
us was in Florida (or at all).
6
I am not counsel in, or otherwise involved in any way in, the litigation
in
Arizona that is
the focus
of
his claims
in
the above-captioned lawsuit,
Melendres v Arpaio
2:07-2513 (D. Az.).
I declare under penalty
of
perjury that the foregoing is trne and correct. Executed on July
22, 2015.
2
-
8/20/2019 DM v ACLU # 19-25_Declarations in Support of # 18_S.D.fla._1-15-Cv-22452
7/15
Case 1:15-cv-22452-KMM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2015 Page 1 of 2
DENNIS MONTGOMERY,
vs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 15-cv-22452-KMM
Plaintiff
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION, et al.,
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF ANDRE SEGURA IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER VENUE
Andre Segura declares under penalty
of
perjury as follows:
1 I am an attorney employed by the American Civil Libe1iies Union Foundation at its New
York City headquaiiers. I work principally for the Immigrants Rights Project, and have been
employed by ACLUF since 2007. I am an attorney, actively admitted to the New York bar, and
a defendant in this action.
2
Since 2011, I have been one
of
the counsel for the plaintiffs in
Melendres v Arpaio
cv-
07-2513, a civil rights class action in which Sheriff Arpaio and the depaiiment that he runs (the
Maricopa County heriffs Office) were found at trial to have violated the Fornih and Fomieenth
Amendment rights
of
the plaintiff class. No paii
of
that litigation has entailed work in Florida, or
travel to Florida, or communications to Florida. All my work on it has been in New York and
Arizona, except for appellate proceedings in San Francisco before the Ninth Circuit.
3. Dennis Montgomery, who is the plaintiff in the present case, is not a paiiy in
Melendres.
His first mention in the litigation was when U.S. District Judge Snow introduced, at an April 23,
-
8/20/2019 DM v ACLU # 19-25_Declarations in Support of # 18_S.D.fla._1-15-Cv-22452
8/15
Case 1:15-cv-22452-KMM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2015 Page 2 of 2
2015 hearing, an aiticle from the Phoenix New Times magazine that described Sheriff Arpaio s
hiring
of
Montgomery. Judge Snow raised the article in connection with a pending motion for
contempt against Sheriff Arpaio filed on January 8, 2015, alleging the
Sheriffs
failure to, among
other things, comply with the tem1s
of
a preliminary injunction entered by the
Com1
4. I understai1d that Mr. Montgomery has laid venue in this case in the Southern District
of
Florida, apparently on the theory that he is being injured in Florida and that the defendants knew
that he was living there when they took the actions complained of. From numerous references in
hearings and conferences before Judge Snow, I have understood and believed that Mr.
Montgomery resides in the Seattle, Washington, area, and have never believed him to be a
resident of Florida.
5
None
of
the allegations about me, in the complaint in this action, allege that I have taken
any action in or aimed at Florida in connection with Mr. Montgomery, and I have not done so. I
have not sought, in connection with Mr. Montgomery or any of the allegations lodged in the
Complaint in this action, to avail myself of any privileges of doing business with or in Florida.
I declare under penalty
of
pe1jury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
ugust 14 , 2015
2
-
8/20/2019 DM v ACLU # 19-25_Declarations in Support of # 18_S.D.fla._1-15-Cv-22452
9/15
Case 1:15-cv-22452-KMM Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2015 Page 1 of 2
DENNIS MONTGOMERY,
vs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 15-cv-22452-KMM
Plaintiff
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION, et al.,
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF TERENCE DOUGHERTY IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS
OR
LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER
VENUE
Terence Dougherty declares under penalty o perjury as follows:
1. I am the Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel
o
he American Civil Liberties
Union, Inc. ( ACLU ) and the American Civil Liberties Union-Foundation, Inc. (ACLUF),
which together comprise the national operations
o
the organization. I make this declaration
on
behalfo defendant ACLUF in support o defendants' motion to dismiss for lack o personal
jurisdiction and venue.
2. ACLUF is a New York not-for-profit corporation with its headquarters and principal
place o business in New York City. It has no offices in Florida, and no personnel who are
officed or regularly work in Florida.
3. A diligent sem Cl1 o all o the files and records o ACLUF has uncovered no evidence or
indication whatever that the plaintiff in this action, Detmis Montgomery, had ever been a client
o ACLUF, the ACLU, or
o
any ACLU or ACLUF attomey. In fact, the ACLU does not employ
any individuals to represent clients on its behalf.
-
8/20/2019 DM v ACLU # 19-25_Declarations in Support of # 18_S.D.fla._1-15-Cv-22452
10/15
Case 1:15-cv-22452-KMM Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2015 Page 2 of 2
4. I understand that the complaint in the above-captioned lawsuit also names as defendants
Daniel Pochoda and Joshua Bendor, and identifies them each, in the caption, as employed by the
ACLU of Arizona. They are each employees of the ACLU Foundation of Arizona, which is not
a subsidiary of or under the direction or control of ACLUF or the ACLU. ACLU Foundation
of
Arizona has its own Board and budget, and the ACLU Foundation ofArizona and its staff
counsel and fellows including Messrs. Pochoda and
Bendor
are not subject to the direction and
control or ACLUF or the ACLU.
I declare under penalty of pe1jury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
August I f 2015.
2
-
8/20/2019 DM v ACLU # 19-25_Declarations in Support of # 18_S.D.fla._1-15-Cv-22452
11/15
Case 1:15-cv-22452-KMM Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2015 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 15-cv-22452-KMM
DENNIS MONTGOMERY,
Plaintiff
vs.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION, et al.,
Defendants.
DECLARATION
OF
CECILLIA WANG IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR L CK OF
PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER VENUE
Cecillia Wang declares under penalty
o
perjury as follows:
1
I am the dirnctor o the Immigrants' Rights Project o the American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation ( ACLUF ), and a defendant in this action. The Immigrants' Rights Project ( IRP )
operates out o offices in New York City and San Francisco. I am based principally in San
Francisco.
2. Since September 2008, IRP attorneys have been counsel in Melendres v Arpaio No cv-
07-2513, a civil rights suit in the U.S. District Court for the District o Arizona asserting claims
that Sheriff Arpaio and the department that he nms (the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, or
MCSO ) has violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights o the plaintiff class. I
joined the case
as
co-counsel and was admitted pro hac vice on
or
about July 13, 2009.
3 Dennis Montgomery, who is the plaintiff in the present case against ACLUF and various
present or former employees, is not a party in Melendres. He has lmsuccessfully attempted to
intervene in the Melendres case; he had no local counsel admitted in the District o Arizona and
-
8/20/2019 DM v ACLU # 19-25_Declarations in Support of # 18_S.D.fla._1-15-Cv-22452
12/15
Case 1:15-cv-22452-KMM Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2015 Page 2 of 3
his out-of-state attorney s application for admission pro hac vice was denied
by
the district court
because of a conflict of interest,
s
he had previously represented Sheriff Arpaio in unrelated
litigation and documents in the record demonstrate that Montgomery and Arpaio are adverse to
one another. Montgomery s counsel in the instant case, Larry Klayman, has applied for
application for admission pro hac vice
to
represent Montgomery in his motion to intervene in the
elendres
case, but Klayman suffers from the same conflict
of
interest as
he
represents Arpaio
in
other matters and his application was denied.
4. Dennis Montgomery s name arose in the
elendres
litigation
in
connection with
contempt charges we filed against Sheriff Arpaio and other MCSO personnel. Montgomery s
name arose on the record on April 23, 2015, when the district judge questioned Arpaio on the
witness stand about a newspaper article concerning Montgomery s investigation on behalf
of
MCSO. Arpaio testified that MCSO had hired Montgomery
s
a paid informant. Arpaio
subsequently produced documents indicating that Montgomery s investigation was aimed at least
in
part at developing evidence of a purported conspiracy between the district judge and the
Attorney General of the United States, among others.
5. Based upon the testimony
ofM SO
witnesses during the contempt hearing, and based
upon documents produced
by
MCSO
in
connection with that contempt hearing, I believe Dennis
Montgomery lives in Washington State. I understand that Mr. Montgomery has laid venue in this
case
in
the Southern District
of
Florida, apparently
on
the theory that he is being injured in
Florida and that the defendants knew that he was living there when they took the purported
actions alleged in the complaint. I am surprised by his attempt to assert jurisdiction against the
defendants and venue
in
Florida because all available evidence in the elendres litigation
indicates tlmt Mr. Montgomery lives in Washington State and has done so since at least
2
-
8/20/2019 DM v ACLU # 19-25_Declarations in Support of # 18_S.D.fla._1-15-Cv-22452
13/15
Case 1:15-cv-22452-KMM Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2015 Page 3 of 3
September 2013, when the MCSO hired him. Judge
Snow's
recent decision in
Melendres
found
that in approximately September 2013 MCSO apparently hired Dennis Montgomery, a
computer consultant based
out of
Seattle, Washington.
Melendres v Arpaio
No. cv-07-2513,
Docket No. 1164 at 8;
see also id
at 7 (asking Sheriff Arpaio to address the allegation that
MCSO was paying a confidential informant from Seattle, Washington named Dennis
Montgomery to investigate possible collusion between this Court and the Depar tment
of
Justice ).
6
The complaint in this action contains no allegation that I have taken any action in or
aimed at Florida
in
connection with Mr. Montgomery or any
of
the allegations
of
this lawsuit,
and I have not done so. Nor have I sought, in connection with Mr. Montgomery or any of the
allegations lodged
in
the Complaint in this action, to avail myself of any privileges of doing
business with or
in
Florida. Indeed, I have never
been
to Miami or anywhere else in the
Southern District
of
Florida (except for layovers at the Miami international airport during which
I did not leave the airport terminal), and have never been there
on
any work-related matter, much
less one involving Dennis Montgomery.
T
doclMo
~ ~ p™1ty
of
pcrj ')'th• ' ? ' t rue md
~
Augustlr,201s
~
Cecillia Wang
3
-
8/20/2019 DM v ACLU # 19-25_Declarations in Support of # 18_S.D.fla._1-15-Cv-22452
14/15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 15-cv-22452-KMM
DENNIS MONTGOMERY,Plaintiff,
vs.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________
DECLARATION OF DANIEL J. POCHODA IN SUPPORT
OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OFPERSONAL JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER VENUE
Daniel J. Pochoda declares under penalty of perjury as follows:
1. I am a defendant in this action, and an attorney employed by the American Civil Liberties
Union Foundation of Arizona, where I have worked for nearly nine years. I am based in
Phoenix, Arizona, and all my litigation is located in the state and federal courts in Arizona,
except for occasional appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
2. Since filing the Amended Complaint on September 5, 2008, I have been one of the
counsel for the plaintiffs in Melendres v. Arpaio, cv-07-2513, a civil rights suit asserting claims
that Sheriff Arpaio and the department that he runs (the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, or
“MCSO”) has violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the plaintiff class. No
part of that litigation has entailed work in, travel to, or communications with to Florida. All my
work on it has been in Arizona.
3. Dennis Montgomery, who is the plaintiff in the present case against ACLUF and various
present or former employees, is not a party in Melendres, and I had not heard of him until more
than six years after it was initiated, when his name arose in connection with a motion for
Case 1:15-cv-22452-KMM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2015 Page 1 of 2
-
8/20/2019 DM v ACLU # 19-25_Declarations in Support of # 18_S.D.fla._1-15-Cv-22452
15/15
Case 1:15-cv-22452-KMM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2015 Page 2 of 2
contempt against Sheriff Arpaio, alleging the Sheriffs failure to comply with the terms
of
a
preliminary injunction entered by the Court. Since I heard
of
him, I have understood him to
reside in Washington State.
4 I understand that Mr. Montgomery has laid venue in this case in the Southern District
of
Florida, apparently on the theory that he is being injured in Florida and that the defendants knew
that he was living there when they took the actions complained of. I am surprised by his attempt
to assert jurisdiction against the defendants and venue in Florida, because everything I have
heard indicates that Mr. Montgomery lives in Washington State, and has done so since at least
September 2013, when the MCSO hired him. Judge Snow's most recent decision in elendres
found that
in
approximately September 2013 MCSO apparently hired Dennis Montgomery, a
computer consultant based out of Seattle, Washington. Docket 1164, slip op. at 8; see also i at
7 (asking Sheriff Arpaio to address the allegation that MCSO was paying a confidential infor-
mant from Seattle, Washington named Dennis Montgomery to investigate possible collusion
between this Comi and the Department
of
Justice ).
5
None of the allegations about me in the complaint in this action allege that I have taken
any action in or aimed at Florida in connection with Mr. Montgomery, and I have not done so.
Nor have I sought, in connection with Mr. Montgomery or any
of the allegations lodged in the
Complaint in this action, to avail myself of any privileges of doing business with or in Florida. I
have been to Miami or elsewhere in the Southern District of Florida only twice in more than
forty years, each time for a few days, and have never been there on any matter involving Dennis
Montgomery.
I declare under penalty of pe1jury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on