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

[AnOminous]

Is there any way to reduce how long it stays things for (if it's clearly not sufficient to dismiss the case)?

The court can lift the stay whenever it likes (or on the deadline) by ruling on the motion to dismiss.

 

[RodgerDodger]

There's automatically a stay when a TCPA motion is filed. There wouldn't be any point to the TCPA if it didn't stay the proceedings. That's its whole point.

One thing about the TCPA has me a little confused and concerned. The TCPA is a single shared motion among all the defendants. They only get to do it once. But any one of them could trigger it, correct? So even if Ty comes to a binding agreement with Casey allowing Vic to be deposed first and putting off the TCPA until MoRonica is deposed, could Marchi not simply step up and drop TCPA the motion outside of that agreement? There are still two parties that have not been heard from in this.

 

[Slab Bulkhead]

The court can lift the stay whenever it likes (or on the deadline) by ruling on the motion to dismiss.

So potentially even after all this if they do file a TCPA the courts could quickly take a look at the contents of the case and say "Yeah nah" and dismiss the motion?

One thing about the TCPA has me a little confused and concerned. The TCPA is a single shared motion among all the defendants. They only get to do it once. But any one of them could trigger it, correct? So even if Ty comes to a binding agreement with Casey allowing Vic to be deposed first and putting off the TCPA until MoRonica is deposed, could Marchi not simply step up and drop TCPA the motion outside of that agreement? There are still two parties that have not been heard from in this.

I'm not sure but I don't -think- so? If they come to a Rule 11 agreement I think it is enforced between the entire defense and they can't just 'Okay, I agreed not to file a TCPA, but our partner never did! Hah, joke's on you!' but I could be mistaken. Granted if they come to a rule 11, I think depending on how it's done it would allow them to continue limited discovery even during a TCPA.

 

[AnOminous]

One thing about the TCPA has me a little confused and concerned. The TCPA is a single shared motion among all the defendants. They only get to do it once. But any one of them could trigger it, correct? So even if Ty comes to a binding agreement with Casey allowing Vic to be deposed first and putting off the TCPA until MoRonica is deposed, could Marchi not simply step up and drop TCPA the motion outside of that agreement? There are still two parties that have not been heard from in this.

I'm not sure that's the case. You could have a sound case against one defendant but added another defendant just to be a dick. Each defendant has the right to file such a motion, but it could be in whole or in part, and could be only in relation to that one defendant, while not helping the others at all. For instance, one defendant could file it in relation only to the defamation claims, while the other could file only in relation to the tortious interference claims.

 

[robobobo]

Texan’s and most Southerners view a distinct difference between the Liberal “Strong Independent Woman” Feminists and what is best typified as “Country Strong”. A strong willed Southern woman of deep common sense who tolerates no shit and will give you the ass kicking you so rightly deserve should you step one foot out of line. Southerners by and large despise the dangerhaired useless women of the first type. And will adore women of the second type to the ends of the earth. Doubly so if it’s their ass she is kicking.

This is very true. Southern women are expected to have a fairly well-defined line past which one crosses only at great peril. This is because the typical southern boy is expected to be something of a goober who needs a woman's hand upside his head when he's being stupid. I wouldn't go so far as to call it matriarchal, more that men and women rule separate domains and shouldn't be crossed on their territory. The fact that it's rooted in strong gender roles is what sends people into a tizzy over it, when actually southern culture typically enshrines respect for women as a core value. However, part of that social compact is that the woman in question actually rolls up her sleeves to get things done instead of crying on Twitter; useless people don't get respect.

 

[AStupidMonkey]

This is very true. Southern women are expected to have a fairly well-defined line past which one crosses only at great peril. This is because the typical southern boy is expected to be something of a goober who needs a woman's hand upside his head when he's being stupid. I wouldn't go so far as to call it matriarchal, more that men and women rule separate domains and shouldn't be crossed on their territory. The fact that it's rooted in strong gender roles is what sends people into a tizzy over it, when actually southern culture typically enshrines respect for women as a core value. However, part of that social compact is that the woman in question actually rolls up her sleeves to get things done instead of crying on Twitter; useless people don't get respect.

It's almost as if... could it be... they're actually less sexist than the bleeding-heart feminists?

Let me consult my abacus and etch-a-sketch, and I'll get back to y'all.

 

[Wake me up]

I think at this point we can 100% assume a TCPA motion will be filed, right? Casey is coming out with a "full-force lunatic" strategy, there's no chance he won't drag this lawsuit as much as humanly possible.

 

[AnOminous]

I think at this point we can 100% assume a TCPA motion will be filed, right? Casey is coming out with a "full-force lunatic" strategy, there's no chance he won't drag this lawsuit as much as humanly possible.

TCPA isn't really good for dragging things out, it's designed to do exactly the opposite. It's the only way to end this lawsuit without a long, brutal struggle, though, so he may try it. I'd say he'll almost certainly try it. Funimation also will because money is not going to be a huge concern at the beginning. The cost of filing a TCPA is a gamble well worth making even if only to set them up for a better settlement later.

But the TCPA part of the case, once filed, will go lightning fast as legal things go. There are very strict timetables and even the extensions are strictly limited. It isn't the usual thing where a court can just mosey along on its own timetable.

 

[teriyakiburns]

TCPA isn't really good for dragging things out, it's designed to do exactly the opposite. It's the only way to end this lawsuit without a long, brutal struggle, though, so he may try it. I'd say he'll almost certainly try it. Funimation also will because money is not going to be a huge concern at the beginning. The cost of filing a TCPA is a gamble well worth making even if only to set them up for a better settlement later.

But the TCPA part of the case, once filed, will go lightning fast as legal things go. There are very strict timetables and even the extensions are strictly limited. It isn't the usual thing where a court can just mosey along on its own timetable.

It's been mentioned a few times that a TCPA filing would stay discovery for 90 days. Is that an implicit "up to" depending on how fast the hearing takes place, or is it a hard number that won't change? A quick search implies the former, but it isn't being all that helpful.

E: further reading tells me that it's up to 90 days. I suppose parties would have to agree on the date of the TCPA hearing and Casey was hoping he could arrange a hearing right on the deadline to stretch things out for as long as possible.

 

[slipstream.anomaly]

To all Kiwi Kommando agents, your mission should you choose to accept it.

On May 31, 2019, be in the courtroom located on the 3rd floor of the Tom Vandergriff Civil Courts Building, at 100 North Calhoun Street, Fort Worth Texas, no later then 11:15 AM local time. Bring only a pen and some paper to write on and dress appropriately.

I could probably pull that off, but I'd need to fly. Driving would take too long. I think it's 14 hours to Dallas from where I am.

 

[AnOminous]

It's been mentioned a few times that a TCPA filing would stay discovery for 90 days. Is that an implicit "up to" depending on how fast the hearing takes place, or is it a hard number that won't change? A quick search implies the former, but it isn't being all that helpful.

E: further reading tells me that it's up to 90 days. I suppose parties would have to agree on the date of the TCPA hearing and Casey was hoping he could arrange a hearing right on the deadline to stretch things out for as long as possible.

The deadlines are not optional.

They are hard.

"Appellant filed his initial suit on November 1, 2012, and Media Appellees were served with process on December 5, 2012. They properly filed their motion to dismiss under the TCPA on January 8, 2013, within the 60 days required by the act. In accordance with the statute effective at that time, the trial court was required to hold a hearing within 30 days. However, the hearing was not held until February 20, 2013, a full 43 days after service of the motion."

The case goes on to describe how, despite the hearing being 13 days late, the court went on to grant the motion and dismiss the case.

"Unfortunately for the Media Appellees, these deadlines were not optional."

And then:

"The trial court was authorized to delay the hearing only for good cause. Citizens Participation Act, 82nd Leg., R.S., ch 341, § 27.004, 2011 TEX.GEN.LAWS 961, 963 (amended 2013)."

And:

"The statute requires a hearing on the Media Appellees' dismissal motions, and without such a hearing the motions to dismiss cannot be granted. Citizens Participation Act, 82nd Leg., R.S., ch 341, § 27.004, 2011 TEX.GEN.LAWS 961, 963 (amended 2013). On the other hand, if the hearing on February 20 was, in fact, the motion hearing, then the dismissal motion was overruled by operation of law when a ruling was not made within 30 days of February 20."

Daniels v. State, 538 S.W.3d 139 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2017, pet. denied).

IMPORTANT NOTE: subsequently to the facts of this case, the statute was amended making the current deadline 60 days from the service of the motion, but otherwise, there is no reason to believe the new deadline is optional.

So this is fairly brutal, but if the court neglects to hold a hearing on the motion within the tight timetable, the motion is automatically dismissed by operation of law.

The court is also required to rule on the motion within 30 days of the hearing.

So first, the TCPA motion must be filed within 60 days of the serving of the lawsuit. This can be extended for good cause. I believe an agreement of the parties to extend it while another motion such as a jurisdictional motion is decided would constitute good cause, only because I have actually seen a court do this, although a federal court, in Meyer v. Waid. So far as I know, it hasn't been ruled on, but the person risking something with such an agreement would be the defendant, because if it isn't good cause, the TCPA motion would be automatically dismissed and the case would go forward.

What concerns us, though, is the "good cause" part.

"A hearing on a motion under Section 27.003 must be set not later than the 60th day after the date of service of the motion unless the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing, upon a showing of good cause, or by agreement of the parties, but in no event shall the hearing occur more than 90 days after service of the motion under Section 27.003, except as provided by Subsection (c)." § 27.004.

So even with an agreement of the parties or good cause, the only extension available is another 30 days, making the hard deadline 90 days after the service of the motion. The statute uses the words "must" and "shall" when describing the deadlines, language used to describe mandatory actions. The court's inaction would constitute dismissing the motion and proceeding with the case.

So in short, there will be a ruling on this within 90 days of Vic being served with the TCPA motion. Even not ruling would amount to a ruling denying the motion.

ETA: another note about discovery. I've mentioned this previously, but might as well throw it into this post. Just because discovery is stayed in the main action doesn't mean no discovery can occur while the motion is pending, just not the usual discovery.

"(b) On a motion by a party or on the court's own motion and on a showing of good cause, the court may allow specified and limited discovery relevant to the motion." § 27.006(b), (added by Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 341 (H.B. 2973), Sec. 2, eff. June 17, 2011).

So anyone involved could be compelled to testify on the TCPA motion itself.

 

[AStupidMonkey]

The deadlines are not optional.

They are hard.

"Appellant filed his initial suit on November 1, 2012, and Media Appellees were served with process on December 5, 2012. They properly filed their motion to dismiss under the TCPA on January 8, 2013, within the 60 days required by the act. In accordance with the statute effective at that time, the trial court was required to hold a hearing within 30 days. However, the hearing was not held until February 20, 2013, a full 43 days after service of the motion."

The case goes on to describe how, despite the hearing being 13 days late, the court went on to grant the motion and dismiss the case.

"Unfortunately for the Media Appellees, these deadlines were not optional."

And then:

"The trial court was authorized to delay the hearing only for good cause. Citizens Participation Act, 82nd Leg., R.S., ch 341, § 27.004, 2011 TEX.GEN.LAWS 961, 963 (amended 2013)."

And:

"The statute requires a hearing on the Media Appellees' dismissal motions, and without such a hearing the motions to dismiss cannot be granted. Citizens Participation Act, 82nd Leg., R.S., ch 341, § 27.004, 2011 TEX.GEN.LAWS 961, 963 (amended 2013). On the other hand, if the hearing on February 20 was, in fact, the motion hearing, then the dismissal motion was overruled by operation of law when a ruling was not made within 30 days of February 20."

Daniels v. State, 538 S.W.3d 139 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2017, pet. denied).

IMPORTANT NOTE: subsequently to the facts of this case, the statute was amended making the current deadline 60 days from the service of the motion, but otherwise, there is no reason to believe the new deadline is optional.

So this is fairly brutal, but if the court neglects to hold a hearing on the motion within the tight timetable, the motion is automatically dismissed by operation of law.

The court is also required to rule on the motion within 30 days of the hearing.

So first, the TCPA motion must be filed within 60 days of the serving of the lawsuit. This can be extended for good cause. I believe an agreement of the parties to extend it while another motion such as a jurisdictional motion is decided would constitute good cause, only because I have actually seen a court do this, although a federal court, in Meyer v. Waid. So far as I know, it hasn't been ruled on, but the person risking something with such an agreement would be the defendant, because if it isn't good cause, the TCPA motion would be automatically dismissed and the case would go forward.

What concerns us, though, is the "good cause" part.

"A hearing on a motion under Section 27.003 must be set not later than the 60th day after the date of service of the motion unless the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing, upon a showing of good cause, or by agreement of the parties, but in no event shall the hearing occur more than 90 days after service of the motion under Section 27.003, except as provided by Subsection (c)." § 27.004.

So even with an agreement of the parties or good cause, the only extension available is another 30 days, making the hard deadline 90 days after the service of the motion. The statute uses the words "must" and "shall" when describing the deadlines, language used to describe mandatory actions. The court's inaction would constitute dismissing the motion and proceeding with the case.

So in short, there will be a ruling on this within 90 days of Vic being served with the TCPA motion. Even not ruling would amount to a ruling denying the motion.

ETA: another note about discovery. I've mentioned this previously, but might as well throw it into this post. Just because discovery is stayed in the main action doesn't mean no discovery can occur while the motion is pending, just not the usual discovery.

"(b) On a motion by a party or on the court's own motion and on a showing of good cause, the court may allow specified and limited discovery relevant to the motion." § 27.006(b), (added by Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 341 (H.B. 2973), Sec. 2, eff. June 17, 2011).

So anyone involved could be compelled to testify on the TCPA motion itself.

So... the court is required to rule on it, but then sometimes doesn't and it just fails anyways.

Would this be grounds for an appeal?

 

[AnOminous]

So... the court is required to rule on it, but then sometimes doesn't and it just fails anyways.

Would this be grounds for an appeal?

This was was an appeal. It sounds like a bizarre concept since presumably if the court had incorrectly denied the motion that could be appealed, but when it just missed the deadline, the motion was automatically denied despite the court going ahead and dismissing.

 

[Right To Bear Blarms]

They have a bigger problem than the TCPA to deal with today. No new filings for today as of now.

 

[Mrtrollenski]

They have a bigger problem than the TCPA to deal with today. No new filings for today as of now.
View attachment 757369

What defaults?

 

[TheClappening]

What defaults?

Default judgment essentially means they lose the suit.

 

[some_crazy]

What defaults?

Default in this context means automatically losing a lawsuit by failing to respond on time.

 

[Evil Bunny]

Default in this context means automatically losing a lawsuit by failing to respond on time.

Let me put on my prognostication helmet.

The claims will be, we defaulted through NO fault of our own, it doesn't mean we lost, it's just a technicality, this doesn't prove Vic didn't do it, on and on ad nauseum

 

[Wake me up]

They have a bigger problem than the TCPA to deal with today. No new filings for today as of now.
View attachment 757369

At this point I'm so confused by their council that the only explanation I can come up is that Ron has actually killed Casey, ate his corpse and is wearing his skin and pretending to be a lawyer. I'm not sure if I'm joking or not, that's how bad it is.

I want to know how damages are awarded in a case that is won by default but let's not get ahead of ourselves here. I want to see what's next.

Any chance that Ron dropped their lawyer because he was promised they wouldn't have to depose at all and it of course didn't happen? Would it be ethical for Casey to just drop the client with no notice and let him fuck himself over by missing the deadline? In general, what the fuck is even happening? Any chance that the clerks are just backed up and whatever doc just isn't showing up on the archives?

 

[Stoneheart]

can we be sure that this is not just a bug in the system? they responded but the system is behind to show it to the public?
i wouldnt jizz my pants till the beard speaks.