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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Is no one paying attention to see if there is new filings in 141st District Court aka Chupp's court docket?
 
5t3n0g0ph3r said:
Is no one paying attention to see if there is new filings in 141st District Court aka Chupp's court docket?
Click to expand...
I'm not because I refuse to believe they would take this shit so far only to spike at the 1 yard line.

I'm autistically checking the Supreme Court docket every day for "Mignogna" and "Funimation".
 
mindlessobserver said:
I'm not because I refuse to believe they would take this shit so far only to spike at the 1 yard line.

I'm autistically checking the Supreme Court docket every day for "Mignogna" and "Funimation".
Click to expand...
I just checked re:Searchtx and there isn't a filing related to arguing about fees.
So, I guess we'll see.
On a minor note, you can't download the files from the original suit anymore.
Weird.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Catgirls are Love, TVB, Kosher Salt and 1 other person
5t3n0g0ph3r said:
I just checked re:Searchtx and there isn't a filing related to arguing about fees.
So, I guess we'll see.
On a minor note, you can't download the files from the original suit anymore.
Weird.
Click to expand...
Probably some aging out DVR type shit to keep the court's tiny server uncluttered, if I had to guess. They keep paper records and might back up to some state-run forever depository. No need to have it all locally to the courthouse.
 
Featured on Feb 5, 2023 by Null: Vic Mignogna has been ordered to pay court fees after failing in appeals.
UPDATE:
Screenshot_20230205-030044_Brave.jpg
Screenshot_20230205-030112_Drive.jpg
Screenshot_20230205-030057_Brave.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Informative
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Wafer4142, Xenomorphs Are Cute, Mister Dongs and 94 others
  • Feels
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Helvetica Black, Xenomorphs Are Cute, Asmobaby and 103 others
Irrational Exuberance said:
*sigh*

Fuck it, just go on with your lives. Vic is a decent person who didn't deserve any of this, but he's still standing and still getting work. Sometimes you just have to take what you can get from life.
Click to expand...
He can still appeal to SCOTUS by March 30th...
 
  • Optimistic
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Lunacy
Reactions: FierceBrosnan, Fuck It We'll Do It Live, Coldbeyond and 45 others
Sad Crusader said:
Ty Beard, you fucked up a layup case you fucking leech.
Click to expand...
Ty is the tacticool genius who was going to treat the case like a wargame with plans for 30 moves ahead, only to sit down and immediately get Fool's Mated. gg no re.

I don't think the rest of the case would have been easy, but Vic paying all fees stems from Ty's absolute failure in dealing with the TCPA he knew was coming. He couldn't even get "Vic didn't do it" into evidence between the faulty affidavits and non-admitted second amended petition (why wasn't it in the original filing???). I hope he finds some way to make this right by Vic, because some comments in the appellate decision make me think Vic would have been able to meet the TCPA burden barring these blunders, but I don't think he will.
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: FierceBrosnan, jspit2.0, Pimozide and 12 others
Hraf said:
I don't think the rest of the case would have been easy, but Vic paying all fees stems from Ty's absolute failure in dealing with the TCPA he knew was coming. He couldn't even get "Vic didn't do it" into evidence between the faulty affidavits and non-admitted second amended petition (why wasn't it in the original filing???). I hope he finds some way to make this right by Vic, because some comments in the appellate decision make me think Vic would have been able to meet the TCPA burden barring these blunders, but I don't think he will.
Click to expand...
Ty screwed up the notary, but the court refusing to allow his amended petition - despite that amended petition falling entirely within the rule 11 agreement that the court had previously held all sides to - was the larger error. The fact that the appeals court and SCOTX both just ignored this, when it throws a spanner into the entire machinery of Texas court procedure, is remarkable.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Rooster_13_, Allanon, Hideous K and 40 others
teriyakiburns said:
Ty screwed up the notary, but the court refusing to allow his amended petition - despite that amended petition falling entirely within the rule 11 agreement that the court had previously held all sides to - was the larger error. The fact that the appeals court and SCOTX both just ignored this, when it throws a spanner into the entire machinery of Texas court procedure, is remarkable.
Click to expand...
"Screwed up the notary" is kind of a big own goal. It's not a small thing, it's a piece of procedure that is easy to do and has to be done right.

And by the way, the manager of a staples could have notarized the documents for Vic, it didn't need to be his fancy lawyer doing it from a different state.

Ty took a stupid shortcut and got caught.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: ThatDumbPhilosopher, Rooster_13_, Berrakh and 17 others
teriyakiburns said:
Ty screwed up the notary, but the court refusing to allow his amended petition - despite that amended petition falling entirely within the rule 11 agreement that the court had previously held all sides to - was the larger error. The fact that the appeals court and SCOTX both just ignored this, when it throws a spanner into the entire machinery of Texas court procedure, is remarkable.
Click to expand...
I know all levels of the court ignored the rule 11 agreement, I believe under the bizarre reading that the previously agreed upon terms were trying to get around the restrictions imposed by the TCPA. I agree that them putting their fingers in their ears and whistling is deranged. That they did this is their problem to deal with in the future (or not, they'll probably just ignore what they did here as well).

The original petition was filed on 4/18/2019, and says in the claim of defamation that the defendants' statements were false, with no other factual support. Funimation filed their TCPA on 7/1/2019. Vic's affidavit was attached to the response to the TCPA Motion to Dismiss filed on 8/30/2019, and was withdrawn on 9/3/2019 after the defects were found. The second amended petition was also filed on 9/3/2019 with the affidavits attached as unsworn declarations. The appeals court did not find that what was entered was enough to clear the TCPA burden, effectively because there were no denials that the events took place.

Maybe Ty thought these denials could be added after the original filing through the affidavit, and attached it at the last minute (actually a few minutes after the last minute) to the response to the TCPA dismissal. This would have been fine, had they not been improperly notarized. Even that would have been fine, had the courts considered the second amended petition, as they should have. My problem with it is, if he knew the TCPA would impose these restrictions (and he did), why did he not try to get the denials in sooner? Surely it wouldn't have been that onerous to attach anything to the original petition to definitively get them in, rather than wait until after the TCPA is filed and hope bad actors and bad procedure don't win out. Maybe this is just easy to complain about in hindsight.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Ralph Barnhardt, 6thRanger and Irrational Exuberance
Owlbear said:
"Screwed up the notary" is kind of a big own goal. It's not a small thing, it's a piece of procedure that is easy to do and has to be done right.

And by the way, the manager of a staples could have notarized the documents for Vic, it didn't need to be his fancy lawyer doing it from a different state.
Click to expand...
They didn't even need sworn affidavits, just unsworn declarations. It's a wonky technical distinction since they're both under penalty of perjury, but there was no real advantage even to trying to do it the way Ty did. I honestly don't know how you sign a document that explicitly states you were face to face with the declarant when you were all the way across the state.

There are notaries authorized to do it remotely, and Ty wasn't. And yes, literally some dude at any office store probably had that very cert.

It was an absolutely baffling own goal.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: ThatDumbPhilosopher, Berrakh, Providence Backing_21 and 23 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back