DM v ACLU # 19-25_Declarations in Support of # 18_S.D.fla._1-15-Cv-22452

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


2/15


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


3/15




DENNIS MONTGOMERY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNIONFOUNDATION, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________

DECLARATION OF SUSAN HERMAN IN SUPPORT OFDEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF


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



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



5/15


DENNIS MONTGOMERY,

vs.




Plaintiff

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

FOUNDATION, et al.,

Defendants.

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL GERMAN IN SUPPORT

OF

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR L CK OF


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.


6/15


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.).


of

perjury that the foregoing is trne and correct. Executed on July

22, 2015.

2


7/15


DENNIS MONTGOMERY,

vs.




Plaintiff


FOUNDATION, et al.,

Defendants.

DECLARATION OF ANDRE SEGURA IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF


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,


8/15


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.


of

pe1jury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on

ugust 14 , 2015

2


9/15


DENNIS MONTGOMERY,

vs.




Plaintiff


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.


10/15


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


11/15





DENNIS MONTGOMERY,

Plaintiff

vs.


FOUNDATION, et al.,

Defendants.

DECLARATION

OF

CECILLIA WANG IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR L CK OF


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


12/15


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


13/15


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


14/15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA


DENNIS MONTGOMERY,Plaintiff,

vs.


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



15/15


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

Documents

DM v ACLU # 19-25_Declarations in Support of # 18_S.D.fla._1-15-Cv-22452