Victor Mignogna v. Funimation Productions, LLC, et al. (2019) - Vic's lawsuit against Funimation, VAs, and others, for over a million dollars.

[TheClappening]

Tortious interference (with Business relations or with a contract) tends to require an underlying tort or some unlawful underlying action. If Vic is found to not be defamed, the TI sorta falls apart (and they only argued TI in regards to torts, not other unlawful actions that could also give rise to TI, though personally I think going after TI was the more likely to succeed choice). Conspiracy works the exact same way. They are what is called a "derivative tort". See Agar Corp., Inc. v. Electro Circuits Int'l, LLC, 580 S.W.3d 136 (Tex. 2019) for Conspiracy, and see Wal-Mart Stores v. Sturges, 52 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. 2001) for TI, though they didn't use that exact phrase in the second citation.


They release miscellaneous orders whenever they feel like it, but release actual important stuff on Fridays usually. See:

TJB | SC | Orders & Opinions | 2022

www.txcourts.gov

It's just weird that Vic argued for every single tort, even the weaker ones (e.g. tortoise interference from Marchi) in his appeal, but before SCOTX he's only addressed defamation.

What's the standard of review before SCOTX? With the appellate court it was de nova, so he had to basically reexplain everything. Maybe it's different before SCOTX.

 

[AnOminous]

What's the standard of review before SCOTX? With the appellate court it was de nova, so he had to basically reexplain everything. Maybe it's different before SCOTX.

The standard of review would be the same, but they don't have to hear the case at all. They could simply decline to grant cert, which is what I believe will probably happen.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Ron Toye, Monica Rial, Jamie Marchi, Funimation all filed response waivers saying they don't intend to respond unless the court forces them to respond

Rial&Toye - archive
Marchi - archive
Funimation - archive


Edit: Interesting thing I noticed. None of these were served on one of the two lawyers Funimation employed on this case:

but before SCOTX he's only addressed defamation.

If he wasn't defamed, there wasn't TI. If he was, there was. TI rests on his defamation argument.

 

[TheClappening]

If he wasn't defamed, there wasn't TI. If he was, there was. TI rests on his defamation argument.

For interference with prospective business relations, yeah, there needs to be an underlying tort.

With interference with contracts, though, the mere act of intentionally interfering with the contract is itself the tort.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

With interference with contracts, though, the mere act of intentionally interfering with the contract is itself the tort.

True, however they did talk about Kamehacon situation in their motion, and mentioned that he was similarly dropped from other conventions as well. I don't believe that the facts required to establish TI with a contract ((1) the existence of a valid contract subject to interference; (2) that the defendant willfully and intentionally interfered with the contract; (3) that the interference proximately caused the plaintiff's injury; and (4) that the plaintiff incurred actual damage or loss. Cmty. Health Sys. Prof'l Servs. Corp. v. Hansen, 525 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2017) ) are in contention. All the facts are before the court already, and regardless he did establish them all when taking about Monica's defamation against him. Should he have spent more time on the contract bit? Sure. I still contend that going after defamation and rule 11 were the biggest priorities.

Edit:

Texas Supreme Court released an order list (for today) granting some motions, and denying others. Vic's case is not in the order list.

 

[teriyakiburns]

And so the ritual of refreshment begins anew...

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

And so the ritual of refreshment begins anew...

Raise a glass for F5 Day.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Texas Supreme Court released an order list (for today) granting some motions, and denying others. Vic's case is not in the order list.

Looked over some documents, and I know when (the soonest) Texas Supreme Court will be able to look over Vic's request.

Looking through "SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS INTERNAL OPERATING PROCEDURES" (archive), I found that the request for review is forwarded to the Supreme Court of Texas the first Tuesday after a waiver of response is filed.

That means, at earliest, the court will see Vic's request on Tuesday the 22nd.

 

[TheClappening]

Raise a glass for F5 Day.

Not gonna lie, my Pavlovian training makes me miss f5 day.

 

[2lolis1cup]

And so the ritual of refreshment begins anew...

ahhhhh the refreshing chill of death waiting for decisions once again. My refresh button has been wired to my pain cortex once more.

 

[mindlessobserver]

It's just weird that Vic argued for every single tort, even the weaker ones (e.g. tortoise interference from Marchi) in his appeal, but before SCOTX he's only addressed defamation.

What's the standard of review before SCOTX? With the appellate court it was de nova, so he had to basically reexplain everything. Maybe it's different before SCOTX.

Vic is trying to defeat a TCPA dismissal, so that means he only has to argue about defamation.

Looks like Ty made good on his promise to do a Supreme Court appeal for free. I'm not quite a doom pilled as others. The Texas Supreme Court has not gotten a Crack at the public figure doctrine since the advent of universal social media and this presents an interesting case. They could very easily split the baby by saying Ty did fuck up and fuck off with your retard second amended petition...but Vic is also not a Public Figure and thus the 1st petition establishes enough to defeat the TCPA.

 

[TheClappening]

Vic is trying to defeat a TCPA dismissal, so that means he only has to argue about defamation.

Does it work like that?

I was under the impression that the TCPA evaluated each tort individually. For example, I could have seen Jamie Marchi winning on TI but losing on defamation.

For some torts, like conspiracy, vicarious liability, and TI with prospective business relations, need an underlying tort, so I can see him only going for defamation.

But then there's TI with contracts, and that's a tort all on its lonesome.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Does it work like that?

I was under the impression that the TCPA evaluated each tort individually. For example, I could have seen Jamie Marchi winning on TI but losing on defamation.

For some torts, like conspiracy, vicarious liability, and TI with prospective business relations, need an underlying tort, so I can see him only going for defamation.

But then there's TI with contracts, and that's a tort all on its lonesome.

To a point, and Ty does mention each tort in one line sentences on the reversible errors page. But the actual meat of the case is the defamation component.

 

[teriyakiburns]

My current thoughts, after having to spend the entire morning in a freezing downpour, for a meeting that ended up cancelled.

 

[Kosher Dill]

Looks like Ty made good on his promise to do a Supreme Court appeal for free.

And he'll be worth every penny!

 

[AnOminous]

Tortious interference (with Business relations or with a contract) tends to require an underlying tort or some unlawful underlying action.

This isn't actually the case in Texas, although this case also does allege the underlying tort of defamation. Tortious interference with prospective business relationship, also alleged in this case, does require the conduct be "independently tortious," but the basic form of the tort doesn't have that requirement.

I'm not sure it matters, at least to this case, since it actually does allege an underlying tort, and it seems the cases would be few and far between where non-tortious conduct could give rise to a TI claim, because most such non-tortious conduct would itself be protected in some way.

What's the standard of review before SCOTX? With the appellate court it was de nova, so he had to basically reexplain everything. Maybe it's different before SCOTX.

Same de novo appellate standard, but that's only if they deign to hear the case at all. The panel appears to have based its decision on grounds that would make review even more unlikely, and they might have to find Chupp or the panel abused their discretion in ruling that evidence was improperly not admitted.

That's hard to argue when Ty himself withdrew most of it.

 

[DragoonSierra]

Vic is trying to defeat a TCPA dismissal, so that means he only has to argue about defamation.

Looks like Ty made good on his promise to do a Supreme Court appeal for free. I'm not quite a doom pilled as others. The Texas Supreme Court has not gotten a Crack at the public figure doctrine since the advent of universal social media and this presents an interesting case. They could very easily split the baby by saying Ty did fuck up and fuck off with your retard second amended petition...but Vic is also not a Public Figure and thus the 1st petition establishes enough to defeat the TCPA.

Ok then how do you put up the signal flare that they should take the case and that this is an issue they should look at?

 

[mindlessobserver]

Ok then how do you put up the signal flare that they should take the case and that this is an issue they should look at?

Who knows. Welcome once more to F5 day, where hope is fleeting.

 

[TheClappening]

Ok then how do you put up the signal flare that they should take the case and that this is an issue they should look at?

They would only really take it if there's some interesting issue they want to rule on.

At best, there's the weirdness with the Rule 11 agreement, and possibly the public figure standard applied to a very niche celebrity like Vic.

I don't see it happening considering the 2DCOA smacked down the appeal because of the evidentiary fuckups.

 

[2lolis1cup]

Ok then how do you put up the signal flare that they should take the case and that this is an issue they should look at?

It seems the solution your looking for would fit quite well with the rest of the case.