A summary‑judgment trap
Colorado courts never sanctioned.
Upending the bedrock principle that a movant for summary judgment must come forward with evidence—not bare argument—the Court of Appeals' decision below quietly inverts C.R.C.P. 56, splits in pure diametric conflict with Amada, contravenes Wallman, Morlan, Central Bank, and Suncor, and forges procedural forfeitures that no Colorado authority requires. The result is a judicially sanctioned playbook for sandbagging that will be deployed against every pro se litigant and resource‑starved party in the State.
Amicus briefs require leave of court — and must be filed within 7 days of the petition.
The petition was filed on Thursday, May 28, 2026. Under C.A.R. 53(g), an amicus curiae may file a brief "only by leave of court or at the court's request," and it "must be filed within 7 days after the filing of the petition, opposition, or cross-petition that the amicus brief supports." The motion for leave (with the proposed brief attached) must therefore be filed after the petition's filing, but within 7 days of it — the countdown above runs to the close of that 7-day window.
Pick your depth — start anywhere, but start somewhere.
Cold to the case? Here's where to spend the time you actually have.
The Cert‑Pool
Memo
One page.
Four questions, three operative facts, four panel errors, the prejudice showing, two statewide stakes, and the ask. Built to be read in under a minute.
Memo, then the Issues page
After the one‑pager, the four issues verbatim from the Petition — plus Section II's prejudice showing — each with controlling‑authority quotes, panel‑error citations, and case‑link cross‑references.
Read the Issues → 30 minutesThe Full Petition (PDF)
All 25 pages, 3,800 words. The complete Petition for Writ of Certiorari, exactly as filed with the Colorado Supreme Court on May 28.
Open PDF →Procedural fairness and civil
rights—in a single record.
This case is not a one‑off. The procedural distortions below were applied to a 12-minute false detention captured on body camera. The legal questions are independent from those facts—but the facts are why the questions reached this Court.
For Procedural & Appellate Practice
Summary judgment is the most frequently filed dispositive motion in Colorado civil courts. The Court of Appeals has quietly rewritten how it works: a movant may file an evidence‑free opening brief, observe the response, and produce its actual evidence only in reply—labeling that evidence "rebuttal" while arguing forfeiture to any later objection. If left uncorrected, these rules will alter how every Colorado MSJ is litigated.
The decision splits in pure diametric conflict with Amada, and conflicts with Wallman, Morlan, Central Bank, and Suncor—five decisions the Colorado Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have repeatedly applied for decades.
For Civil Rights & Access to Justice
Mr. Montgomery was detained for twelve minutes by store employees who never identified what he supposedly possessed, who claimed to have called police that no record shows were ever called, and whose own affidavit and receipt—both introduced for the first time in reply—contradict each other on whether he was inside the store at all.
The Panel resolved every contradiction in Best Buy's favor while dismissing sworn testimony and body camera footage as merely "self‑serving speculation." That is not summary judgment—that is trial by appellate brief.
A timeline that cannot be reconciled.
Defendant's two pieces of reply‑only evidence contradict each other—and both contradict Plaintiff's own body camera footage. The Court of Appeals never addressed this.
The detention has already begun.
a purchase using Plaintiff's credit card.
"immediately leave the Best Buy Store."
If the manager observed Plaintiff steal and "immediately leave," there was no time for a purchase. If Plaintiff made a purchase and "immediately left," the theft observation is impossible. Both cannot be true—yet the Court of Appeals concurrently adopted both.
Reviewing the prior‑litigation footnote in the Court of Appeals' opinion?
The Record documents, in granular detail, why every fact element of the prior Walmart cases is structurally absent from this Best Buy case, and gathers — with deep links into the live consolidated briefing PDFs — every passage in which Plaintiff has directly refuted the “lawsuit scammer” framing on the record. From the Record Itself →
Start with the cert‑pool memo. Then the four filings every amicus reviewer should read.
The Cert‑Pool Memo
One page. The format appellate clerks and amicus committees actually screen on. Four questions, three operative facts, four panel errors, the prejudice showing, two statewide stakes, and the ask — built to be printed, attached, and read in under a minute.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Filed on May 28, 2026. 25 pages, 3,800 words.The pure procedural‑law brief that frames the questions presented and the C.A.R. 49 grounds for review.
Open PDF →
Amicus Brief Draft (Unsigned)
Must be filed by June 4, 2026. 20 pages, 3,149 words.Ready to sign as drafted, modify to your interests, or replace entirely. Editable .odt source provided on the Amicus page.
Open PDF →
Court of Appeals Opinion
Issued Feb. 19, 2026. Modified March 26, 2026.The decision below, by Judge Yun (Grove and Schock, JJ., concurring), not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(e). Petition for Rehearing denied March 26.
Open PDF →
Consolidated MSJ Briefing
All briefs, responses, replies, exhibits, affidavits, and the Order granting Defendant's MSJ—in a single 13 MB compendium for review.
Open PDF →
Before June 4: send a Letter of Intent.
The petition is filed; the seven‑day filing window closes at 11:59 PM MDT on June 4. A public Letter of Intent commits your firm or organization now: your name lists on the supporters roster the moment the LOI is received, signalling institutional commitment ahead of your docketed motion. Each Letter of Intent converts to a docketed motion entry the moment its motion is filed.
Sign as drafted. Modify and sign. Or replace with your own brief.
Mr. Montgomery is a pro se petitioner, not an institutional movant. Whatever resources you can bring to bear—a name on the brief, a voice in the legal community, an institutional banner—materially advances the question whether a Colorado court of last resort permits the procedural ambush below.