Judge Judith Haller, Judge Joan Irion & Judge Patricia Guerrero
Storix v. Johnson | Johnson v. Huffman | Consolidated State Appeals
Johnson appealed the state court rulings of Judges Kevin A. Enright & Judge Katherine A. Bacal, and neither Wilson/Elser (representing Management) or Procopio (still purporting to represent Storix) responded to most issues. The appellate court allowed oral arguments (which were video-taped but too large to upload here) where Johnson reiterated that the opposing parties didn't respond to most issues. Most notably, Storix remained under the exclusive control of the Management/Defendants, so none of Storix's acts throughout the litigation (or on appeal) were ever approved by a disinterested board. Johnson also argued that Procopio illegally fought against Storix's own derivative claims and Management unlawfully self-approved using Storix funds for their defense against every action.
The 3-judge panel (Judges Judith Haller, Joan Irion & Patricia Guerrero) were repeatedly asked by Johnson to look to his reply brief showing that he clearly defeated all the opposing arguments. Notably, "Storix" raised the $3,739.14 "loss of employee productivity" claim against him in the Janstor Suit for the first time in closing arguments when he had no opportunity to dispute it. Also, Management raised a new defense of "at-will employment" for the first time in closing arguments when he again had no opportunity to respond. The biased panel ignored these facts as well as the most important issue underlying every claim and defense - whether the Storix board was disinterested in any of its decisions.
The panel couldn't defeat Johnson's argument that the Storix board was disinterested, so they simply ignored the argument altogether and allowed Procopio to unlawfully raise new arguments on appeal -- asserting that Storix's president, David Huffman, approved the Janstor Suit lawsuit against Johnson (completely contradicting their consistent argument at trial that the lawsuit was approved by he Storix board). The judicial abuse culminated in a 47-page unpublished order that raised new arguments against Johnson (that he had no opportunity to respond to), and they added over 40 new (but irrelevant) case citations to support the respondents, yet never addressed a single fact, issue or law cited by Johnson that would have required reversal of every decision against him.
Then, in an another extraordinary decision, they ordered Johnson to pay Management's costs and attorney fees for the appeal - while also refusing to address the fact (ignored by judges Enright and Bacal) that they used Storix (and thus Johnson's only income) to pay all their expenses for the entire 5 years of litigation. There is unlikely any order, published or unpublished, by the California court of appeals that so expertly ignored a dozen dispositive issues while appearing so well-reasoned.
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.
(2020-12-18 Video of Oral Arguments too large)