Storix v. Johnson | Cases & Documents

The following are the documents are separated by case, but note that dates (2014-2021) of some cases overlap. The last case is the civil rights case Johnson finally filed against the judges, attorneys and Storix's management for conspiring to deprive him his constitutional rights for over 6 years.

Note the several purposes for providing these documents:

  1. To prove the systematic abuse of judges at every level of the California state and federal judiciaries and the lengths they will go to conceal the clear bias and incompetence of the lower courts occupied by judges with absolute immunity and life terms in which there is no means to remove them.

  2. To demonstrate that Johnson was never unreasonable, his claims were never frivolous, and his facts and arguments were clear and undisputed but simply never acknowledged by the trial or appellate courts.

  3. To demonstrate that not one judge in 6 years acknowledged any of the litigation misconduct or conflict-of-interest of the multiple attorneys from Procopio (purportedly representing Storix) or Wilson/Elser (representing Storix's management - the 52% shareholders), or that they were all being illegally paid Johnson's own money to litigate against him in order to protect their absolute control of the company and conceal its financial records. The documents also show that the judges (including the court of appeals) forced Johnson to pay the unprecedented costs and attorney fees of both Storix and the 52% (who never paid any expenses) to deter and punish Johnson for trying to expose the millions of embezzlement of tax fraud of the defendants (including the attorneys).

  4. To prove that every decision against Johnson that collectively cost him and Storix over $7 million was based on nothing more than a $3,739.14 claim against him for sending an email in 2015 - which "Storix" raised as a new claim in closing arguments after a 10-day trial that Johnson had no opportunity to dispute.

  5. To prove that everything in the book "Summarily Denied" (soon to be released) is completely true and supported by the court's own documents

The files HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW are the most relevant pleadings and appeal briefs in which Johnson brought to each court's attention both clear legal errors and the intentional omission of facts, issues and arguments in the orders, judgements and opinions - all of which they continued to ignore. The files HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN are the most relevant orders and opinions of the courts showing that the most dispositive issues and arguments were never addressed.

   * Note that 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.

 

​COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT SUIT
JUDGE MARILYN HUFF

In this case, federal district court Judge Marilyn L. Huff ruled that Johnson transferred ownership all copyrights to his software (SBAdmin) to Storix when he incorporated the company in 2003, even though Johnson was Storix's sole owner, officer and director.  After finding for the first time in U.S. History that no written agreement was needed to transfer copyright ownership, Judge Huff ordered Johnson to pay Storix (after he gave 60% ownership to his employees) over 5 times the largest attorney fee award against any individual in a copyright case in U.S. History ($555,000) simply because he sent an email during the litigation threatening to sue the new 52% majority shareholders for the damages they were causing Storix. and she did so knowing Johnson woudl have to sell his house to afford a bond to appeal her decision. Despite Judge Huff's rulings, Storix still has no right to enforce "its" copyrights because they remain registered to Johnson with the U.S. copyright office - which Storix cannot change without a written transfer agreement from Johnson.

On first appeal, the Ninth Circuit upheld the copyright ownership decision without addressing the fact that the copyrights had been registered with the Copyright Office to Johnson fro 15 years or that Storix posessed no written transfer agreement. But it remanded the case back to Judge Huff to redecide the attorney fees they found unreasonable and excessive.

 

Judge Huff again ignored all Johnson's arguments and evidence showing that, by then, Storix had demanded and was awarded only $3,739.14 related to the "2015 email" from which she based the entire attorney fee award (even though it had nothing to do with the copyright case). He also cited numerous statutes and cases showing that anything more than a nominal amount was unreasonable under the circunstances. She nevertheless only reduced the amount to $420,000 ("to comply wth the mandateto reduce the fees") but then added 3 years of interest. Johnson appealed again, citing the same cases and statures proving the amount still unreasonable, and also that it was a violation of his First Amendment rights to base the award on an email that Judge Huff simply found "inapppropriate" because it threatened Storix's management with litigation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the entire fee award on the sole ground that Johnson improperly appealed the "decision" to award fees instead of the "amount" remanded for reconsideration (without even saying what the "decision" was based on or deciding the other four issues addressing the unreasonablemess of the amount). 

(missing Storix opposition to motion for reconsideration)

 

STORIX'S "JANSTOR" SUIT
JUDGE RANDA TRAPP

 

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 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 its own derivative claims (see below), and that management took millions from the company for their personal use to ensure no profits were left to pay Johnson (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 the new "loss of employee productivity" claim and escaping 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.

 

(see consolidated trial below)

 

​SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE SUIT
JUDGE JOEL WOHLFEIL & JUDGE RONALD PRAGER

Johnson and another shareholder, Robin Sassi (using their combined 48% minority share of Storix), filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit on Storix's behalf against its management and 52% shareholders for abuse of control, waste of corporate resources, and breach of fiduciary duty to minority shareholders. The "Management/Defendants" (David Huffman, Richard Turner, Manuel Altamirano, David Kinney & David Smiljkovich) instructed Procopio (allegedly representing Storix's interests) to interfere and obstruct discovery in the lawsuit while illegally paying them and their personal attorneys at Wilson/Elser all of Storix's profits to defeat the company's own claims and prevent Johnson and Sassi from receiving any income to support them.

 

The case was assigned to Judge Joel R. Wohlfeil, who assigned Judge Ronald S. Prager as a discovery referee.  Procopio's litigation misconduct and conflict-of-interest, as well as the Management/Defendants illegal use Storix funds to defeat its own claims, was brought to Judge Prager's attention in attempt to stop defendants from raiding Storix's coffers to defeat its own claims. But he discarded all evidence and found instead that Johnson wasn't entitled to any rights as a Storix director to inspect its records because he was allegedly competing with Storix, and Sassi was denied access becasue she supported Johnson in the Copyright Suit and was therefore "colluding" with him to destroy Storix - ignoring that they personally filed and funded the lawsuit on Storix's behalf.

(Johnson opposition papers with declarations & evidence too large to include)

(see consolidated trial below)

 

JOHNSON'S CROSS-COMPLAINT
JUDGE JOEL WOHLFEIL

After Management cut off all shareholder distributions to ensure Johnson had no income to support Storix's derivative claims against them, Johnson filed a cross-complaint to the Janstor Suit against Management for filing it without board approval and for refusing him a position in the company he was entitled to as a 40% owner of the company. This lawsuit was later consolidated with the Shareholder Derivative Suit and assigned to Judge Kevin Enright for trial (see below), but not before Judge Joel Wohlfeil dismissed the claim of Management filing the Janstor Suit without board approval - but without determining whether the lawsuit was ever approved by Storix.

(see consolidated trial below)

WORKPLACE VIOLENCE  RESTRAINING ORDER &
WRIT TO INSPECT STORIX'S RECORDS

JUDGE RANDA TRAPP

Management's first effort to prevent Johnson from obtaining any company financial records as a director was to falsely accuse him of stalking and threatening the lives of Storix's employees. Johnson traveled from Florida to fight the restraining order and, after Johnson proved they were lying, the judge dismissed it with prejudice in its entirety, noting that any threats by Johnson were simply legal threats. It did no good since Procopio meanwhile obtained a ruling from Judge Randa M. Trapp that Johnson could not have access to Storix or its records because of the temporary restraining order and because Storix was suing him for competing in the Janstor Suit - both based on false claims that had not been litigated and were later disproven.

 
 

TRIAL OF JANSTOR SUIT, CROSS-COMPLAINT, & DERIVATIVE SUIT

JUDGE KEVIN ENRIGHT

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 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.

 

(See appeal of consolidated actions below)

 

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. CONVERSION, ETC. (CALIFORNIA)

JUDGE KATHERINE BACAL

After trial, Johnson discovered that David Huffman, Richard Turner, Manuel Altamirano & David Kinney had siphoned $475,000 of his Storix earnings while he was on medical leave in 2011 - shortly after he gave them their stock in the company for free. This finally explained their need to keep Johnson out of the company and its financial records. So Johnson filed a new lawsuit which included a claim of malicious prosecution against them and  David Smiljkovich for filing and continuing the frivolous Janstor Suit against Johnson for competing, knowing he was living in Florida and no competing business ever existed.

 

The case was assigned to Judge Katherine A. Bacal who refused to enter default against the defendant when they failed to answer, then allowed them to file motions to dismiss the claims while the default was pending. This prevented Johnson from amending his complaint to avoid the claims being dismissed with prejudice after being forced to post a $180,000 out-of-state plaintiff's bond to cover the defendants' costs - even knowing they were still having Wilson/Elser send all their attorney bills to Storix for payment.

 

Judge Bacal held an initial status conference where Procopio attorney Sean Sullivan stood with Management (even though Storix was not a party to the case). She made clear that she was not going to allow Johnson's claims to be heard, so Johnson filed a peremptory challenge (statutory right to transfer a case to a different judge before any hearings), which Judge Bacal rejected without explanation. Johnson had to voluntarily dismiss the suit and file it in federal court instead to have it heard by a different judge. Judge Bacal retaliated by making Johnson pay the defendants (who were still using his own Storix profits for their defense) over $15,000 in costs and fees for filing their motions.

(See consolidated appeals below)


MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, CONVERSION, ETC. (FEDERAL)

JUDGE MARILYN HUFF

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

After Johnson dismissed the same claims in state court, he refiled them in federal court. The complaint included the claim against David Huffman, Richard Turner, Manuel Altamirano and David Kinney for converting his $475,000 of company earnings to their personal equity accounts, as well as the malicoius prosecution claim - this time adding the Procopio attorneys, Paul Tyrell and Sean Sullivan, as defendants. He also added a claim against "Storix" for faiing to compensate him for his copyrights under the "oral contract" that 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.  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 18 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 hte last two - again by raising new arugment on the defendants' behalf.

Never before has a judge exhibited such blatant bias, dragging out a simple motion to dismiss for "failure to state a claim" for 18 months and then dismissing all claims with prejudice on absurd affirmative defenses to prevent any evidene supporting the claims (amounting to $6 million) from ever being being presented. 

      (Appeal of denial of motion to recuse and dismissal of all claims to follow)

 
 

CONSOLIDATED APPEALS OF ALL STATE JUDGEMENTS, COSTS & FEES

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 Management, 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 having Storix fund 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 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 and instead allowed Procopio to raise new arguments on appeal (which is not allowed by law) 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 panel issued a 47-page unpublished order that raised new arguments in their favor (so Johnson would have no opportunity to respond ) and actually added over 40 new case citations to support the respondents (against the "party presentation rule" requiring the parties to argue their own cases), and never addressed Johnson's key facts and arguments properly raised in the trial court and on appeal that would have required reversal of the decisions against him.

 

The California Court of Appeals, like every trial court, simply refused to address the key issue of whether the Storix board was ever disinterested while continuing treat Storix and Management as separate and distinct parties - never acknowledging that Johnson funded the Shareholder Derivative Suit on Storix's behalf or that he had any rights as a 40% owner of the company. Pay special attention to the Petition for Rehearing showing all the important facts, issues, statutes and case law Johnson presented that the panel simply ignored. The panel ensured their 47-page opinion would have no chance of review by the California Supreme Court simply refusing to publish it.  

Then, in an 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 both 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.

(2020-12-18 Video of Oral Arguments too large to include)

COMMON COUNTS SUIT
JUDGE RANDA TRAPP & JUDGE KATHERINE BACAL

Since Judge Huff stayed Johnson's conversion claim against Management indefinitely, Johnson finally brought a claim against Storix in state court instead, demanding the $475,000 of company profits he earned while he was Storix's sole shareholder.  And, since Judge Huff dismissed his claim against Storix for failing to compensate him for his copyrights under an oral contract (by finding the contract invalid), Johnson included a new claim against Storix for "failure to compensate for goods provided" under an implied promise (given that any agreement was between Johnson and himself since he was Storix's sole shareholder, officer and director). 

 

The case was randomly assigned to Judge Katherine A. Bacal, who immediately started her same shenanigans. She and Judge Randa M. Trapp rejected Johnson's filing of the complaint because his name allegedly appeared on the vexatious litigant list (that was clearly another "Anthony Johnson" who filed dozens of lawsuits in Los Angeles ten years earlier). After months Johnson spent finally defeating their efforts to prevent the filing, Judge Bacal once again rejected his peremptory challenge - this time by maniuplating the court docket to make his request appear untimely. Johnson was then stuck with Judge Bacal, who made clear in the prior State Malicious Prosecution Suit that no claims by Johnson would ever be heard on the merits in her court.

 

Again, Johnson had to vountarily dismiss the case without prejudice to avoid her impending dismissal. Yet somehow Procopio found out about the case even though the complaint was never served.

CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT

JUDGE TODD ROBINSON

The blatant judicial abuse in the Common Counts Suit was the final straw that gave rise to a federal Civil Rights Suit against all the judges and attorneys (and their clients) who releatedly violated Johnson's right to due process guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The complaint alleges a conspiracy to deprive his civi rights against Judge Marilyn Huff, Judge Randa Trapp, Judge Katherine Bacal & Judge Kevin Enright, Procopio attorneys Paul Tyrell & Sean Sullivan, Wilson/Elser attorneys Michael McCloskey, David Aveni & Marty Ready, and their clients, David Huffman, Manuel Altamirano, Richard Turner, David Kinney & David Smiljkovich (Storix Management). The complaint also included the Common Counts claims against Storix that Johnson was forced to dismiss in state court.

 

Soon after the case was randomly assigned to a federal judge (who was not a defendant), it was transferred to Judge Todd Robinson on his first day as a newly appointed judge (he was formerly a criminal prosecutor). Judge Robinson allowed a hearing on the defendants' 5 separate motions to dismiss (see transcript below) where Johnson argued that none of the defendants' arguments were supported by the cases they cited, and that their assertion that his claims lacked sufficient facts could be easily cured by amendment. There were 5 attorneys representing the defendants at the hearing, none of which disputed Johnson's arguments.

 

The court granted all the defendants motions to dismiss (for failure to state a claim) without leave to amend except one - the "money had and received" claim against Storix for the $475,000 of his company earnings. Judge Robinson allowed Johnson to amend to allege "indebtedness" of Storix, but reserved on other grounds to dismiss the claim.

Johnson amended the complaint (which now only includes the one remaining claim against Storix) to state additional facts showing that Storix is indebted to him, which started a new round of motions to dismiss, and Johnson can't appeal the dismissal of any of the dismissed claims until the entire case is decided.