Storix v. Johnson | Malicious Prosecution, Conversion, etc. (Federal)


* By far the most absurd display of judicial abuse and bias on record *

After Johnson voluntarily dismissed the malicious prosecution lawsuit in California court due to Judge Bacal's due process violations, he refiled them it in federal court. This time, the complaint included a claim against David Huffman, Richard Turner, Manuel Altamirano and David Kinney for converting his $475,000 of company earnings to their personal equity accounts and added the Procopio attorneys, Paul Tyrell and Sean Sullivan, as malicious prosecution defendants. He also added a claim against "Storix" for failing to compensate him for his copyrights under the "oral contract" Judge Huff decided in the Copyright Suit was used to transfer ownership of his copyrights to Storix.


Incredibly, after the case was assigned to a new judge (according to the rules of court requiring random case assignent), Judge Marilyn Huff somehow got wind of the new lawsuit and had the case transferred to her court without cause.  She then ignored every law and court procedure, refused to allow any hearings, argued the case on the defendant's behalf, and dismissed 7 of the 9 claims with prejudice on absurd grounds that Johnson was given no chance to dispute. She then stayed the remaining two claims (against the Management/Defendants) pending the outcome of the state appeal, directing them to raise a res judicata defense (meaning the same claims were previously litigated) after the appeal was decided. The case remained pending for 16 months while she refused to identify any claims or issues relevant to this lawsuit that were previously litigated or decided (because there were none).

Pay special attention to the motion to recuse Judge Huff (which she refused to allow another judge to decide and then denied herself without addressing any issues) and the motion for reconsideration that called her out for arguing the case for the defendants and the absurdity of her unlawful dismissal of his claims. Of course, she denied both, again without addressing Johnson's facts or arguments. Finally, after the state appeal was decided, Judge Huff asked for a third round of briefing, then ignored all facts and law when dismissing the last two - again by raising new argument on the defendants' behalf.

Never before has a judge exhibited such blatant bias, violated due process in so many ways, and literally argued the case for the defendants - all while continuing to ignore the litigation misconduct of the same attorneys she ordered Johnson to pay over $555,000 in fees in the Copyright Case. She managed to drag out a simple motion to dismiss for "failure to state a claim" for 16 months and then dismissed all claims with prejudice without any reference to the complaint, thereby preventing any evidence from being presented or acknowledging any relevant facts in her orders.

The case is now on appeal with the Ninth Circuit. But, as shown in the Copyright Case, they usually affirm all of Judge Huff's rulings without reference to the actual issues (including constitutional rights violations) raised on appeal. It remains to be seen if they will do the same with this case, where it would be impossible to affirm the dismissal of any of the 9 claims without similarly ignoring every fact, issue and law - most notably that a judge cannot argue the case for a party.

** Awaiting Response Briefs