top of page

Judge Joel Wohlfeil & Judge Ronald Prager

Johnson v. Huffman, et al. | Shareholder Derivative Suit

Johnson and another shareholder, Robin Sassi (using their combined 48% minority share of Storix), filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit on Storix's behalf against its management and 52% shareholders for abuse of control, waste of corporate resources, and breach of fiduciary duty to minority shareholders. The "Management/Defendants" (David Huffman, Richard Turner, Manuel Altamirano, David Kinney & David Smiljkovich) instructed Procopio (allegedly representing Storix's interests) to interfere and obstruct discovery in the lawsuit while illegally paying them and their personal attorneys at Wilson/Elser all of Storix's profits to defeat the company's own claims and prevent Johnson and Sassi from receiving any income to support them.


The case was assigned to Judge Joel R. Wohlfeil, who assigned Judge Ronald S. Prager as a discovery referee.  Procopio's litigation misconduct and conflict-of-interest, as well as the Management/Defendants illegal use Storix funds to defeat its own claims, was brought to Judge Prager's attention in attempt to stop defendants from raiding Storix's coffers to defeat its own claims.


Prager discarded all evidence and found instead that Johnson wasn't entitled to any rights as a Storix director to inspect its records because he was allegedly competing with Storix (again, a claim never substantiated), and Sassi was denied access becasue she supported Johnson in the Copyright Suit and was therefore "colluding" with him to destroy Storix (also never substantiayted). He ignored the basic fact that Johnson and Sassi personally filed and funded the lawsuit on Storix's behalf.


YELLOW = most relevant pleadings and appeal briefs in which Johnson brought to each court's attention clear legal errors and intentional omission of facts, issues and arguments in the orders, judgements and opinions.

GREEN = most relevant orders and opinions of the courts showing the judges' continued refusal to address any of Johnson's facts, issues or arguments.

  * Some of the documents contain comments added by Johnson as he prepared his responses and appeals,
     and some may contain insults or foul language, but were retained since they provide context as to the absurdity of
     the opposing arguments and the court's decisions.

(Johnson opposition papers with declarations & evidence too large to include)


bottom of page