I'm re-reading Moronica's objection and 2(C) literally claims something in the title and does NOT explain why what Ty did was bad. "Tips his hands"? He literally did what he should be doing: Ensuring that the quality of evidence presented to the judge be acceptable. That's not a bad thing!
3(Intro) Oh wow, here's a lot of evidence you can use to push your point! Mind... citing one Lemon? okay, 370 cases said you can't amend, but did they say you can? How would I know if you don't CITE YOUR FUCKING SOURCES? And isn't HB2730 not applicable in this because it's entering in effect after the TCPA is resolved? Why cite it? And the fuck? "Plaintiff cannot complain about prejudice if they don't use the discovery procedure of the TCPA"... what? How does that ever make sense? Not B if Not A, but nothing to link them both? Do you... have any case law to prove that point?
3(A) You're claiming a public figure again.But you're not claiming a general or limited public figure. You're using the fact that he has fans to declare he's a public figure. I got friends who likes me. Does that make me a public figure? No? Not enough friends? What's your threshold for it to become a public figure?
"given his aggressive involvement in the public controversy concerning this dispute" Dude did THREE tweets, does not talk about the case or the controversy to anyone, and tried to not involve himself in the controversy by asking his fans to talk about positive stuff instead. How is that aggressive? And if that's aggressive, how would you qualify what Ron, Jamie and Monica did? Little boy, Fat man and Manhatthan? And again, no citation to show that yes, he was aggressive about that case. Severe doubt!
"Plaintiff has addressed his over 113,000 Twitter followers and uncountable international fans" 1 - What was his twitter follower when he did those announcements? 2 - How would he reaches uncountable international fans over twitter if they don't follow him? Why are you assuming he has uncountable fans that aren't part of his twitter followers? This reeks of poisoning the well.
"Plaintiff must establish that any alleged defamatory statements were committed with actual malice:"And your clients made it very, VERY easy to claim actual malice in this case for the TCPA. Mignogna saying No proves malice to the TCPA filing. It's that easy. And then you have Soy Boye who literally said in his depo that he doesn't do any validation and just believes. That's a BLATANT disregard for the truth, ergo actual malice.
And then it goes on about Mignogna trying to score. Newsflash: It's not illegal to hit on the opposite sex when everyone involved is an adult. You don't need to search far, you can find members of Mignogna's fanclub who dreams about getting his kids. And they're younger than him! Age difference literally makes no sense bringing it up, unless it was an adult with a minor, which this case is NOT. Dear god this filing is horrible.
And yeah, he can totally claim disregard of the truth about Funimation's investigation, mainly because the twins' story wasn't part of the 3 investigations he was alerted of. Remember, there was the jelly bean incident, a consensual kiss, and a consensual undeclared relationship. Nothing about hitting on twins. (And even then, it's pretty weak. Why shouldn't he be able to try to score? This cancel culture is ass).
And then he tries to sell that the supplements are necessary to get the full picture. Cool story bro, but why couldn't they be part of the original filing? You know, the one that was given on the day of the time limit to give it? Why couldn't YOU request a discovery proceeding on the TCPA to get the twins deposed and get their statements instead of getting massive hearsay affidavits?
3(B) And you're entirely ignoring the whole "Supplements are to be considered separate filings".
Maybe defendant failed to raise any of your issues with your perceptions of the Purpose of the TCPA and timing component because YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM YOURSELF, YOU HACK. It's about preventing frivolous lawsuits. You don't get to say "Yeah, this is one" and then do whatever you want and say that plaintiff can't do anything about it. There's rules and procedures to follow, and you're following NONE of them. You've filled irrecevable evidence that he's trying to strike, and you're pretty much going "Nu huh you can't do that". Newsflash, the case law is on HIS side.
3(C) You're comparing apples to Oranges. Motions don't have a hard deadline, and even petitions needs approval to get amended. But you're going around amending a motion with a strict deadline, PAST THAT DEADLINE. This is equivalent to a teacher giving a homework, but every day he adds new exercises to complete in that homework, and the morning of when it's due they give more. And that if you get one exercise wrong you fail your class entirely. THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. Why do you get to move the goalpost past your deadline? What gives you the right to do that? God, I hope Chuck sanctions him to hell and back.
You're citing TRCP 70 on this, which says that if you gives surprise ammendment that the other party can't answer because it's a surprise, you have to pay their fees. Well, guess what, that'll bite you in the ass. Now he can use that to say that all your ammendments you did falls under that, and that Defendants have to pay for all the extra work he has to do because of the amendments. Congrats, you played yourself.
TRCP 70: When either a supplemental or amended pleading is of such character and is presented at such time as to take the opposite party by surprise, the court may charge the continuance of the cause, if granted, to the party causing the surprise if the other party satisfactorily shows that he is not ready for trial because of the allowance of the filing of such supplemental or amended pleading, and the court may, in such event, in its discretion require the party filing such pleading to pay to the surprised party the amount of reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the other party as a result of the continuance, including attorney fees, or make such other order with respect thereto as may be just.
3(D) Are you... are you comparing the TCPA hard deadlines with a general limit on defendant's MTD deadlines? He has 60 days after the TCPA filing to answer, when the judge has 30 days after the answers to come to a decision. Where does November and December dates come into play on that? Whaaaaaaaaaaat? His time limit to answer is september 1st, unless you try to argue that his 60 day limit gets extended to the last amendment to the TCPA was filed? Is that what you're arguing without arguing it? And no harm? I say he's suffering undue cost due to bad filing. That's harm.
3(E) "Good cause exists for supplementation given the lack of clarity in the TCPA " are you... are you dunking on your own terrible work? This is a problem of YOUR own making. Are you saying that for a TCPA, the best strategy is to file LITERAL GARBAGE, and then use the fact that it's literal garbage to get "Good cause" to amend the TCPA? This sounds a lot like you want to game the fucking court, and I heard Judge Chuck hates that.
"Plaintiff given the array of relief available that he chose to reject. " Citation needed. You said during the entire thing that the only relief he refused to take was an extended discovery. But for his TCPA takedown, he doesn't need to ask other people around. The only thing that this discovery request would do is give you a door to depose Nick for no reason. Fuck you and fuck this terrible filing. This is Grade A shit.
(Warning, IANAL. But dear god, I'm not a lawyer and I see all those problems with this filing. Beard is gonna have a field day on this to ask sanctions. And sorry for the autistic rage, but this filing is just... so... terrible!)
www.youtube.com
