top of page

Judge Kevin Enright

Storix v. Johnson & Johnson v. Huffman | Consolidated State Trial

 

Procopio and Wilson/Elser demanded multiple trial continuances until Judge Wohlfeil had a scheduling conflict and the trial was assigned to Judge Kevin A. Enright instead.

 

Judge Enright's biased pre- and pos-trial evidentiary rulings are too numerous to mention, so pay special attention to the motion for new trial. He never ruled on the most relevant and dispositive issues Johnson raised and re-raised throughout litigation, precluded Johnson from even mentioning to the jury that he represented Storix in the concurrent Shareholder Derivative Suit (which Enright would not allow the juryto decide), or that Storix (meaning the defendants) endorsed Johnson's claims!

 

After the jury trial, Judge Enright dismissed Johnson as a plaintiff in the Shareholder Derivative Suit just 5 minutes before the bench trial (where he alone would decide thosse claims) solely because the jury awarded Storix $3,739.14 against him in the Janstor Suit (that had nothing to do with the shareholder claims). He then overlooked all facts and evidence Johnson presented and generally ruled in favor of the Management/Defendants on every claim while refusing to address the most relevant issue - that every act and decision of Storix was solely that of the defendants - including their self-approving the use of all Storix's profits (and Johnson's only income) to pay both Procopio and Wilson/Elser to defeat the company's own claims against them.

​

Even the claim that the defendants breached their duty to Storix by not improving its only software product for 5 years was ignored by Enright. His legal abuse continued by discarding Johnson's evidence of the company's deteriorating sales, then he ruled in the defendants' favor simply because they testified that they were about to release a new version (which never happened).

​

Judge Enright's judicial abuse continued after trial when he ordered Johnson (and only Johnson) to pay all costs of all parties in every action, including the Procopio's attorney fees incurred by Storix (who actually lost the Derivative Suit) as well as the Management/Defendants (who they were illegally representing against Storix), yet without responding to any facts, evidence or law Johnson presented. Johnson opposed the release of his $50,000 bond in the Derivative Suit to defendants on numerous grounds that were raised in the trial and appellate courts but never acknowledged.

​

​

​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.

 

 

  JUMP TO STATE APPEALS   

​

​

bottom of page