How? The court would have to make the factual determination that Jamie is credible and Vic isn't. That's not a question of law or the sufficiency of the complaint. It's an actual fact finding that Jamie is telling the truth and Vic is lying.
You argue that for Vic to lose
vis a vis Jaimie, “the court would have to make the factual determination that Jamie is credible and Vic isn't.” I disagree. Looking at this specific statement, which unless I'm missing something is the key allegation of defamation against Jaimie Marchi:
Two days later, Jamie tweeted that Vic had assaulted her several years prior by grabbing her hair and whispering in her ear (what he whispered she couldn’t remember), that “in the last week or so, I’ve heard accounts of him doing this exact thing to half a dozen other women that I personally know,” and that Vic is a “predator.” Paragraph 29 of the Complaint.
In the above statement, when Jaimie claims Vic assaulted her, she defines this as “Vic grabbed her hair and whispered in her ear words that she can’t remember. She then says that he did the exact same thing to a half dozen other women that she personally knows, and that Vic is a “predator.”
The Court needs to find that Vic can raise a prima facie case that Jaimie made a false statement or fact about Vic to a third party, which caused him reputational or material harm. I’m leaving aside any requirement of malice for the moment. To do this, Vic can’t change his deposition testimony and in my opinion, based on Vic’s deposition testimony, the Court doesn’t have to make a factual determination here, because Vic admits that Jamie’s statement is substantially true.
Vic testified under oath that she mischaracterized or took out of context what happened. Specifically, he took issue the word pulling hair, because it sounds like there was a fight with somebody and that was not the intent. He explained that he just “put my hand up in the bottom of it and I'm like, oh, this is great. It was not painful, it was not hurtful, it was not sexual, and it happened at least four or five years ago, maybe longer.”
I don’t see an argument that he didn’t grab her hair, rather he merely put his hand up in the bottom of it as raising a prima facie case of falsity regarding her statement. You are right that the Court can’t determine who lied or who told the truth, but when both parties essentially agree on the facts, then the Court can call a strike.
The other issue is her claim that she had heard from other women that Vic did the same thing. Again, Vic admits in deposition that he has touched women’s hair before. I see nothing wrong with what Vic has done. I see no predatory tendencies. But I’m looking at what Jaimie Marchi is alleged to have said in the complaint and I don’t see defamation. In this context, “predator” doesn’t rise to the level of a factual statement. The Court will find that she expressed her opinion that in the context of pulling woman’s hair, Vic is a predator.
I’ll go a step further. Saying that someone grabbed her hair and whispered something in her ear probably isn’t defamatory in any sense. But I think in the context of everything going on and the addition of this makes him a predator, it arguably rises to the level of defamation if it’s a lie and he never did these things. But I don’t think quibbling over the meaning of “grab” vice “lifted” is going to work if you admit that you did touch her hair and may have whispered something in her ear.
Concerning Jamie, you think someone can happen similar to what happened with Funimation?
Before, you weren't feeling confident with Funimation's TCPA (and neither was @AnOminous, at least in relationship to civil conspiracy). Your opinion changed upon seeing that email.
Think something similar can happen to Jamie's case? Just curious because I've only seen you in the actual lawsuit thread, and not in Weeb Wars. There's some interesting screenshots of discord servers that may be Jamie, and so on.
You're right. I'm still not "confident" about Vic's ability to defeat Funimation's TCPA, but I feel better about it. In the complaint, Vic alleges an agency relationship between Funimation and Monica as well as vicarious liability. Vic doesn't lay out the specific factual basis for the agency relationship or vicarious liability except in broad legal terms.
This is fine, because Texas is a notice pleading state and those allegations put Funimation on notice of what it's supposed to answer for. I would argue that the letter from Monica to Funimation supports the Vic's vicarious liability theory. To my mind, it shows that her tweets are used to enhance her reputation and that of Funimation and that her tweets were done was part of her work with Funimation. And that the letter shows she was consulting with Funimation on whether to tweet or not, which shows some level of control by Funimation over her tweets.
But when we talk about Jamie Marchi (and you're right, I haven't reviewed the Weeb Wars thread with the kind of intensity I give to the pleadings), I'm focusing on the defamation cause of action.
Even though Texas is a notice pleading state, defamation and libel require a bit more in terms of pleading because of First Amendment Constitutional issues (and the existence of the anti-SLAPP statute). Generally, the Court is going to look at what Vic plead Jaimie said in the complaint. It's unlikely to consider alleged defamatory statements that weren't plead in the complaint.
I think one reason Monica and Ron canceled the hearing on their special exceptions was to cock block Ty's ability to amend the complaint via his filed First Amended Complaint. You can't amend without leave of Court and if they had a hearing on the special exceptions, the Court would surely have granted leave.
We're wandering into the thickets and the legal issues can be subtle and complex. Ultimately, I think AnOminous and I would both agree that Vic has a stronger case against Monica and Ron. And I think that we would both agree that Vic's case against Funimation and Jaimie is weaker to an extent.
We probably disagree on where those weaknesses lie and exactly how the Court will rule on certain legal issues. This is especially true as we haven't seen any of those motions fully briefed yet. It's all speculation on my part.
I will say this though, I have been converted from a neutral bystander to someone who desperately wants to see Funimation, Jaimie, Monica, and Ron lose their TCPA motions and have to face a Texas jury. As far as I'm concerned, the TCPA motions are the ticket into the ball game.[/i]
