Storix v. Johnson & Janstor | Breach of Fiduciary Duty

 

This was a malicious lawsuit the 52% shareholders filed against Johnson in Storix's name, accusing him of breaching a fiduciary duty as a Storix director by "intending" to compete with the company. The lawsuit was never approved by the board (that included Johnson and another 8% shareholder), Johnson was given no notice of the lawsuit or the claim before it was filed, and it falsely alleged that Johnson lived in California so they could sue him in state court at the same time they were suing him for ownership of his copyrights in federal court.

 

Judge Randa M. Trapp refused to acknowledge that Johnson lived in Florida or dismiss the complaint on other valid grounds, so Procopio was able to continue the lawsuit for 2 1/2 years while using its mere existence to prevent Johnson from having any access to his own company or any of its financial records. Such records eventually proved that Procopio and Wilson/Elser were illegally being paid by Storix to defend management against the company's own derivative claims (see below), and that management took millions from the company for their personal use (and without paying any personal income taxes on the income).

 

They continued the lawsuit all the way to a jury trial where they added a new claim of $3,739.14 in closing arguments that had nothing to do with Johnson competing. Procopio added the claim during closing arguments because they knew Johnson was about to defeat the competition claim, thereby preventing him from disputing their new "loss of employee productivity" claim and escaping liability for malicious prosecution (see below) by preventing him from succeeding on the "entire lawsuit". Neither Judge Kevin Enright (the trial judge) nor the California Court of Appeals would acknowledge any facts that would require reversal of the trivial $3700 judgment or allow Johnson a new trial to finally dispute it.

​

​

​

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.

 

• 2015-08-20 Storix's Janstor Complaint

• 2015-09-24 Johnson Demurrer to Complaint

• 2015-09-25 Johnson Motion to Strike Complaint

• 2016-03-14 Storix's Jansor First Amended Complaint (FAC)

• 2016-04-13 Johnson Motion to Strike FAC

• 2016-04-30 Johnson Demurrer to FAC

• 2016-08-16 Storix Opp to Demurrer

• 2016-08-16 Storix Opp to MTS

• 2016-08-19 Johnson Reply to Storix Opp to MTS & Demurrer

• ​2016-08-26 ORDER Denying Demurrer & MTS (FAC)

• 2016-08-26 TRANSCRIPT Demurrer & MTS hearing

• 2016-09-06 Storix Janstor Second Amended Complaint

• 2016-09-22 Johnson Demurrer to SAC

• 2016-09-22 Johnson Motion to Strike (MTS) the SAC

• 2016-09-30 Storix Opp to Demurrer (SAC)

• 2016-09-30 Storix Opp to MTS (SAC)

• 2016-10-06 Johnson Reply to Storix's Opp to Demurrer (SAC)

• 2016-10-06 Johnson Reply to Storix's Opp to MTS (SAC)

• 2016-10-11 Johnson Suppl. Request for Judicial Notice ISO Demurrer & MTS (SAC)

• 2016-10-14 ORDER  Denying Demurrer & MTS (SAC)

• 2017-03-24 Johnson Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ)

• 2017-05-26 Storix Opp to MSJ

• 2017-06-09 ORDER Denying MSJ

 

  JUMP TO STATE TRIALS          JUMP TO STATE APPEALS 

​

​