Johnson v. Altamirano
| Decision Date | 07 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 3:19-cv-01185-H-BLM |
| Parties | ANTHONY JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. MANUEL ALTAMIRANO, an individual; RICHARD TURNER, an individual; DAVID KINNEY, an individual; DAVID HUFFMAN, an individual; PAUL TYRELL, an individual; SEAN SULLIVAN, an individual; STORIX, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-5, inclusive, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
(1) DISMISSING CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND CONVERSION AS BARRED BY RES JUDICATA;
(2) LIFTING THE STAY; AND
(3) ORDER FOLLOWING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
On January 30, 2020, the Court granted a stay of the remaining claims in the present action pending the appeal in Storix, Inc. v. Johnson, Case No. D075308. (Doc. No. 88 at 22.) On December 31, 2020, the California Court of Appeal issued its opinion in the consolidated appeals: Storix, Inc. v. Johnson, Case No. D075308 and Johnson v. Huffman, Case No. D077096. (Doc. No. 104.) On April 22, 2021, the California Court of Appeal issued its remittitur. See Storix, Inc. v. Johnson, No. D075308 (Cal. App., filed Dec. 10, 2018) (docket).
On April 26, 2021, the Court issued a briefing schedule, requesting further briefing from the parties on the effect, if any, of the California Court of Appeal's December 31, 2020 opinion and April 22, 2021 remittitur on the Court's stay of this action and the Court's December 2, 2019 order. (Doc. No. 107.) On May 10, 2021, Defendants Manuel Altamirano, Richard Turner, David Kinney, and David Huffman filed their supplemental brief. (Doc. No. 108.) On May 22, 2021, Plaintiff Anthony Johnson filed his responsive brief. (Doc. No. 109.) On May 27, 2021, Defendants Altamirano, Turner, Kinney, and Huffman filed a reply brief. (Doc. No. 111.) On May 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed a sur-reply brief. (Doc. No. 112.) After reviewing the parties' briefing and for the reasons set forth below, the Court lifts the stay of the remaining claims in the action. In addition, the Court reconsiders its December 2, 2019 order, and the Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion with prejudice.
Background
This case arises out of a series of cases involving Plaintiff Anthony Johnson and Storix, Inc. As such, the Court details the full procedural history of the litigation below.
On August 8, 2014, Anthony Johnson - the Plaintiff in this action - filed a complaint in federal court, Case No. 14-cv-1873-H-BLM, against Storix, Inc. - one of the defendants in this action - alleging claims for: (1) federal copyright infringement under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.; (2) contributory copyright infringement; and (3) vicarious copyright infringement. (Doc. No. 34-2, RJN Ex. 1.) On September 19, 2014, Storix filed an answer to Johnson's complaint and counterclaims for: (1) a declaratory judgment of non-infringement; and a declaratory judgment that it is the owner of the copyrights at issue. (Id. Ex. 2.)
The action was tried before a jury beginning on December 8, 2015. (Doc. No. 34-2, RJN Ex. 3 at 1.) On December 15, 2015, the jury returned a verdict that was in favor of Storix on all causes of action. (Id. at 2.) Specifically, in the verdict, the jury found that "Storix, Inc. proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Anthony Johnson's copyrightinfringement claim against Storix, Inc. is barred because Anthony Johnson transferred ownership of all pre-incorporation copyrights, including SBAdmin Version 1.3, in writing from himself to Storix, Inc." (Id.) On November 16, 2016, the Court entered an amended judgment incorporating the jury's verdict "in favor of Defendant and Counter-Claimant Storix, and against Plaintiff Anthony Johnson." (Id. at 3.)
Johnson appealed the Court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On December 19, 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. Johnson v. Storix, Inc., 716 F. App'x 628, 632 (9th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 76 (2018). In the decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the jury's verdict on liability, as well as the Court's decision to award Storix attorneys' fees. Id. at 631. However, the Ninth Circuit held that the fees awarded were "unreasonable," and remanded with instructions for the Court "to reconsider the amount." Id. at 632. On April 2, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate.1 (Doc. No. 283.)
On August 7, 2018, after issuing an order awarding attorneys' fees on remand, the Court entered a second amended judgment in the action. (Doc. No. 34-2, RJN Ex. 6.) On February 5, 2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Court's second amended judgment. (Doc. No. 320.) On May 18, 2020, the Court held an appeal mandate hearing and spread the Ninth Circuit's mandate. (Doc. No. 320.) On June 29, 2020, the Supreme Court denied Johnson's petition for writ of certiorari. Johnson v. Storix, No. 19-1244 (U.S. Jun. 29, 2020).
On August 20, 2015, Storix filed a complaint in state court, Case No. 37-2015-28262-CU-BT-CTL, against Anthony Johnson and Janstor Technology, alleging claims for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty against Johnson; and (2) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Janstor. (Doc. No. 34-2, RJN Ex. 8.) On October 13, 2015, AnthonyJohnson along with Robin Sassi filed a derivative complaint on behalf of Storix in state court, Case No. 37-2015-34545-CU-BT-CTL, against David Huffman, Richard Turner, Manuel Altamirano, David Kinney, and David Smiljkovich, alleging claims for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) abuse of control; (3) corporate waste; and (4) an accounting. (Doc. No. 34-3, RJN Ex. 14.) The two actions were subsequently consolidated by the state court.
On March 14, 2016, Storix filed a first amended complaint in Case No. 37-2015-28262, alleging the same two causes of action as in the original complaint. (Doc. No. 34-2, RJN Ex. 9.) On April 13, 2016, Johnson filed a cross-complaint in Case No. 37-2015-28262 against David Huffman, Richard Turner, Manuel Altamirano, David Kinney, and David Smiljkovich, alleging claims for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) civil conspiracy; and (3) fraud. (Id. Ex. 13.) On June 2, 2016, Johnson and Sassi filed a first amended complaint in the derivative action, alleging the same four causes of action as in the original derivative complaint. (Doc. No. 34-3, RJN Ex. 15.) On September 6, 2016, Storix filed a second amended complaint in Case No. 37-2015-28262, alleging the same two causes of action for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty against Johnson; and (2) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Janstor. (Doc. No. 34-2, RJN Ex. 11.)
Following a jury trial, on February 20, 2018, a jury returned a verdict in Case No. 37-2015-28262 in favor of Storix and against Johnson on Storix's claim for breach of fiduciary duty and against Johnson on all of his cross-claims. (Doc. No. 34-4, RJN Ex. 17.) Specifically, in the verdict, the jury found that "Anthony Johnson breach[ed] his duty of loyalty by knowingly acting against Storix, Inc.'s interests while serving on the Board of Directors of Storix, Inc." (Id. at 1.) The jury award Storix $3,739.14 "as a result of Anthony Johnson's acts or conduct in breach of a fiduciary duty or duties owed to Storix, Inc." (Id. at 2.)
On May 16, 2018, after a bench trial, the state court issued a decision and order on the claims in the derivative action, finding in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff on all four causes of action. (Doc. No. 34-4, RJN Ex. 20.) On September 12, 2018, the state court entered a consolidated judgment in the two actions as follows: (1)"[i]n favor of plaintiff Storix, Inc. and against Defendant Anthony Johnson on Storix Inc's complaint for breach of fiduciary duty;" (2) "Cross-Complainant Anthony Johnson shall take nothing from Cross-Defendants David Huffman, Richard Turner, Manuel Altamirano, David Kinney, and David Smiljkovich, or any of them, on the Cross-Complaint filed in Case No. 37-2015-00028262-CU-BT-CTL;" (3) "Plaintiffs Anthony Johnson and Robin Sassi shall take nothing from Defendants David Huffman, Richard Turner, Manuel Altamirano, David Kinney, and David Smiljkovich, or any of them on the First Amended Derivative Complaint filed in Case No. 37-2015-00034545-CUBT-CTL." (Id. Ex. 22.)
On December 10, 2018, Plaintiff appealed the September 12, 2018 consolidated judgment to the California Court of Appeal. (Doc. No. 63-1, Exs. C, D.) See Storix, Inc. v. Johnson, No. D075308 (Cal. App., filed Dec. 10, 2018) (docket).2 While that appeal was pending, Johnson filed a complaint against Defendants Huffman, Altamirano, Turner, and Kinney alleging claims for malicious prosecution, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, economic interference, fraud/constructive fraud, and civil conspiracy. (Doc. No. 104 at 3, 41-42.) Defendants Huffman, Altamirano, Turner, and Kinney responded to the complaint by filing an anti-SLAPP motion challenging the claims. (Id.) Johnson responded by voluntarily dismissing the action without prejudice. (Id.) The defendants in that action then filed a costs memorandum and a motion for attorney fees seeking fees permitted by the anti-SLAPP statute. (Id.) The state court judge awarded the defendants $2,364.45 in costs and $12,237.50 in attorney fees. (Id.) On December 18, 2019, Johnson also appealed this order to the California Court of Appeal. See Johnson v. Huffman, Case No. D077096 (Cal. App., filed Jan. 15, 2020) (docket).
On November 20, 2019, the appeal in Case No. No. D075308 was fully briefed by the parties. See Storix, Inc. v. Johnson, No. D075308 (Cal. App., filed Dec. 10, 2018)(docket). On July 7, 2020, Johnson filed a motion to consolidate the appeal in Case No. D075308 with the appeal in Case No. D077096. See id. On July 30, 2020, the California Court of Appeal issued a letter to the parties requesting supplemental briefing on the timeliness of Johnson's appeal in D077096. See id. On ...
To continue reading
Request your trial