Storix v. Johnson | Consolidated State Trials


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 prejudicial 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 Shareholder Derivative Suit or that Storix (meaning the defendants) endorsed the 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 the derivative claims) solely because of the jury awarded Storix $3,739.14 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 (and against Storix) 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 self-approving the use of all Storix's profits to pay both Procopio and Wilson/Elser to defeat the company's own claims against them.

Judge Enright then ordered Johnson (and only Johnson) to pay all costs of suit in every action as well as the attorney fees of both Storix (who actually lost the Derivative Suit) and the Management/Defendants (who never incurred any expenses) 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. The court ignored Johnson's declaration when generally finding no triable issues of fact but has not entered final judgment. Since the issues were raised but remain undecided, there remains ground for another appeal of the bond's release once final judgment is entered.