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

[AIM Henchman]

I doubt that in their prep, they contemplated "but what if they just file unintelligible gibberish and hundreds of pages of easily disprovable perjury?"

So this is why LawTwitter is claiming this is a work of 'genius'? It's literally the only thing BHBH couldn't prepare for?

 

[GethN7]

So this is why LawTwitter is claiming this is a work of 'genius'? It's literally the only thing BHBH couldn't prepare for?

Apparently, LawTwitter is indeed stupid enough to believe "baffle them with bullshit" is gonna work in a legal sense.

 

[Soviras]

Apparently, LawTwitter is indeed stupid enough to believe "baffle them with bullshit" is gonna work in a legal sense.

It's because Law Twitter sided with them, and Law Twitter can't be wrong, so it must be the work of a misunderstood genius.

 

[774]

Interesting that Chupp's scheduling all of that on the same day, but I can see why he would want to from the perspective of not bogging things down even more with back and forth motions. However, doesn't this mean that BHBH has to write their response to the TCPA without actually knowing which parts of it are valid and actually need to be responded to?

I believe Nick mentioned the possibility the dismissal matter itself will be pushed to a later date, to allow the parties time to deal with any striking and what have you. If I understand the TCPA correctly, since Funimation served their motion on Jul. 1, the hearing about it should be by Aug. 30, or if really necessary, by Sep. 29. And going by how Chupp has handled things so far, he'll probably still want to deal with the other motions at the same time.

 

[NotaLolyer]

Here is the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Funimation's Motion To Dismiss Evidence (aka Ty Beard's response to the TCPA).

Mostly the same we already saw but from research Texas and actually filed hence the number changes

 

[TheClappening]

I've actually been impressed so far by Chupp's eager beaver docketing. I expect no nonsense out of him.

"Anime was a mistake"
--John P. Chupp, 2019

 

[instythot]

It's pretty surgical. It's aimed at factual allegations that are necessary to sustain the TCPA and are also fairly clearly hearsay. I'm not sure about the testimony of investigators regarding witness statements in Texas, but I do know that failure to challenge the admissibility of hearsay waives it and it can be used for any probative value it has if admitted without objection.

Does the judge get an opportunity to reject evidence without an objection or motion to strike being raised?

 

[AnOminous]

Does the judge get an opportunity to reject evidence without an objection or motion to strike being raised?

Courts can do almost anything that can be raised in a motion sua sponte, essentially on its own motion. This even applies to dispositive motions like dismissing a case, although they generally only do this for want of prosecution after some lengthy period of time when no party files anything. Courts don't like lots of cases on the docket and try to clear them.

They just very rarely ever actually do that.

 

[robobobo]

Judges have huge leeway to do mostly whatever the fuck they feel like doing. It's just that a judge who goes off the rails is likely to have their decision reversed on appeal and can face censure if they've rocked the boat for the other judges. I don't think there's anything technically stopping Judge Chupp from leaping atop the bench and hurling fruit at the defendants while screaming, "JULAAAAAAY", but any appeal they made at that point would be pretty guaranteed to be heard by a higher court.

 

[Christian_W9]

Anything Ya'll want me to note down at the hiring on the 8th? -Tazz

 

[PrinceofAllCucks]

Anything Ya'll want me to note down at the hiring on the 8th? -Tazz

Let us know if Chupp has to be carted out of the court room due to the aneurysm caused by reading MoRon's TCPA.

 

[Gehenna]

Anything Ya'll want me to note down at the hiring on the 8th? -Tazz

We NEED to know the EXACT reaction that the Honorable Chupp has to -that- TCPA.

 

[TexOffender]

Anything Ya'll want me to note down at the hiring on the 8th? -Tazz

I'd like to know which is the first part the Judge asks someone to explain.

 

[RodgerDodger]

I doubt that in their prep, they contemplated "but what if they just file unintelligible gibberish and hundreds of pages of easily disprovable perjury?"

After looking at Casey's filings you would think that would be their default assumption?

 

[Gehenna]

After looking at Casey's filings you would think that would be their default assumption?

Casey's filing was insulting, but intelligible.

 

[repentance]

There are multiple hearings and they're set for the afternoon of the 8th. I wouldn't expect much more on that date than a quick review of the motions to ensure that they justify the court's time and the setting of other dates to actually hear them.

 

[Reverend]

I'd like to know which is the first part the Judge asks someone to explain.

I want to know how many minutes in before Chupp asks why the sam hell some lawyer/sperg out of the midwest has any relevance to this case in the slightest.

 

[774]

There are multiple hearings and they're set for the afternoon of the 8th.

Technically, I guess? But they're all set for 1:30 PM. So, I think it'll really be a single hearing where a number of matters will be discussed. It'd be inefficient to have separate hearings for such related things, don't you think?

I wouldn't expect much more on that date than a quick review of the motions to ensure that they justify the court's time and the setting of other dates to actually hear them.

What would be the point of that? Sounds inefficient, if you ask me. And isn't this supposed to be pursuant to the TCPA? Can the court really hold a hearing specifically for that purpose, especially when it's required, and then say, "Well, let's decide this at a later date"? At the very least, it can only be so much later.

 

[instythot]

Judges have huge leeway to do mostly whatever the fuck they feel like doing. It's just that a judge who goes off the rails is likely to have their decision reversed on appeal and can face censure if they've rocked the boat for the other judges. I don't think there's anything technically stopping Judge Chupp from leaping atop the bench and hurling fruit at the defendants while screaming, "JULAAAAAAY", but any appeal they made at that point would be pretty guaranteed to be heard by a higher court.

Take a moment to remember where they're located. There's God and Texas to stop that

There are multiple hearings and they're set for the afternoon of the 8th. I wouldn't expect much more on that date than a quick review of the motions to ensure that they justify the court's time and the setting of other dates to actually hear them.

Is there any chance Lemon Hitler gets a do over because Chupp starts flipping through 500 pages of crap and says "I'm not reading any of this. 20 pages or less"?

Technically, I guess? But they're all set for 1:30 PM. So, I think it'll really be a single hearing where a number of matters will be discussed. It'd be inefficient to have separate hearings for such related things, don't you think?


What would be the point of that? Sounds inefficient, if you ask me. And isn't this supposed to be pursuant to the TCPA? Can the court really hold a hearing specifically for that purpose, especially when it's required, and then say, "Well, let's decide this at a later date"? At the very least, it can only be so much later.

Two things at play here if it's the review to see if it's worth the court's time:

One: Justice moves nearly as slowly and inefficiently as government.
Two: Bring the parties in the room and get a quick summary of their main points so Chupp has an idea of which case law he needs to become familiar with

 

[repentance]

What would be the point of that? Sounds inefficient, if you ask me. And isn't this supposed to be pursuant to the TCPA? Can the court really hold a hearing specifically for that purpose, especially when it's required, and then say, "Well, let's decide this at a later date"? At the very least, it can only be so much later.

Each defendant is entitled to have their TCPA considered separately from the TCPAs of the other defendants. Likewise, the plaintiff is entitled to have their response to each TCPA considered separately.

It would be a nightmare to try to do it as some kind of joint hearing where all of the evidence by all of the parties is considered, and it would certainly take more than a few hours for every side to argue their motions.

It's not unusual at all for courts to decide the actual calendar at the first day of hearing. I'd expect any additional court dates related to the TCPAs - remembering that 3 or 4 TCPAs at issue here, depending on whether the court allows Monica and Ron to file jointly - to be scheduled ASAP.