After years of legal sparring, San Antonio house flipper Armando Montelongo may finally be heading toward actual courtroom showdowns with some of his former students. The case is massive: 423 people say his real estate seminars pushed them into bad deals and pricey upsells that went nowhere, a web of claims judges handling the matter have already labeled “complex.” Montelongo denies the allegations, and his legal team is still fighting over what evidence can come in and how the proceedings should unfold as both sides inch toward trial.
How the first trials could be chosen
At a recent status hearing, the court pressed lawyers on whether a small set of “test” cases could go first so the system is not buried in hundreds of nearly identical trials. Attorneys floated a hybrid plan: group plaintiffs with similar claims into categories, randomly select names from each bucket, then try a limited number of those representative cases after focused discovery. As reported by the San Antonio Express-News, lawyers for the plaintiffs told the judge that early wins could nudge Montelongo toward settling, while early losses might convince some of the 423 to walk away.
What plaintiffs allege
The lawsuits accuse Montelongo and three related companies of selling what plaintiffs call “worthless” instruction, steering students toward affiliated sellers of turn-key properties, and quietly profiting from undisclosed self-dealing. Plaintiffs say the events were not real classes so much as high-pressure sales sessions built around coercive upsells, and they claim both financial and emotional harm followed. Those allegations, along with the size and structure of the group, are described in appellate records and court filings reviewed by Justia.
Limits, damages and collection concerns
Lawyers told the judge that only about 160 plaintiffs appear to have claims that fall within the statute of limitations, a trimming that could significantly reduce how many people actually reach trial. Collectively, the plaintiffs are asking for more than $15 million. Their counsel warned that even if they win, collecting that kind of money might be tough, which is why they have raised ideas such as having Montelongo earmark properties with equity while the litigation drags on. Defense attorneys countered that some of the timely claims are tied to shared purchase orders, and they told the court that several plaintiffs have stopped engaging with discovery. Those points, which the reporting attributes to defense counsel and court filings, were detailed by the San Antonio Express-News.
Long procedural history
The dispute traces back to filings in federal courts in 2016, followed by years of work in Texas state courts, along with appeals and motion practice that have kept many claims alive and stamped the matter as procedurally complex. Appellate decisions and trial court records show the plaintiffs have bounced among forums and legal theories while judges sorted out jurisdictional and procedural questions that had to be resolved before any jury could be seated. For more detail on how the case has moved through the courts, see the appellate summary on FindLaw.
What to watch next
With judges now asking both sides to propose a system for picking who goes first, the next milestone will likely be a plan for a small batch of representative trials to test the strength of the broader claims. According to what plaintiffs’ lawyers told the court, favorable verdicts in those early cases could set the stage for a global settlement, while losses might convince the wider group that the fight is no longer worth it. For now, the case remains active in Bexar County, and Montelongo continues to reject the allegations as everyone waits to see which of the 423 will be first to face him in court.
