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

[RJ MacReady]

What is the obsessive fascination with RT around here? Unless something really juicy is dug up when they finally pry loose Monica or Funi's Discovery, then there is no chance. RT did not commit any valid causes of action. They severed ties with Vic at what appeared to be a natural end to a contract period. They kept their mouths shut regarding why. And they don't appear to have directly interfered with his ongoing and future business prospects. At the moment Vic's long term employment prospects are better than those of any RT employees, who you have to figure will be shitcanned by AT&T as soon as AT&T discovers that they own RT.

I have a theory that everyone praying Rooster Teeth gets sued is mad that RT ruined their favourite cartoon by firing one of its voice actors and are just being disingenuous about it.

 

[Markorian]

I have a theory that everyone praying Rooster Teeth gets sued is mad that RT ruined their favourite cartoon by firing one of its voice actors and are just being disingenuous about it.

Nah, I've hated RT for years, I just want them added because they're weak and it wouldn't take much to push them over the edge after their recent flops.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

A 2nd amendment petition, that'll probably clean some things up.

 

[AnOminous]

Ty's leading argument seems to be that the TCPA does not apply.

No, that's a non-starter argument. It's obligatory to try but it would be a miracle to succeed on that.

Could the TCPA only apply to some claims?

It's conceivable it could fail to apply to the tortious interference claims, but I think that's very unlikely, too, specifically based on the Van der Linden v. Khan case that is from the appeals court Chupp's court answers to. Nick already covered this mostly for the defamation claim but it also had a tortious interference claim with very similar facts and found the TCPA to apply to the whole case.

 

[Catgirls are Love]

I have a theory that everyone praying Rooster Teeth gets sued is mad that RT ruined their favourite cartoon by firing one of its voice actors and are just being disingenuous about it.

I'd rather see Rooster Teeth get sued if they've done something that's worth suing them over. I'm mostly just disappointed at how far they've fallen since the initial run of Red Vs Blue and the once enjoyable community is on life support.

 

[Binary Code]

Anyone have a link to the 2nd A. petition?

 

[teriyakiburns]

Did I miss something obvious? Have BHBH not introduced Marchi's defamatory tweets into the complaint yet?

They haven't. TCPA doesn't address any argument beyond whether or not the plaintiff has the right to pursue his claim, so any evidence other than the plaintiff's assertion of damage isn't strictly necessary.

 

[AnOminous]

The only place I've found it so far was MoRonica's TCPA dismissal motion, of all places. Pages 256-265 appear to reproduce the TDMA letter to Marchi, with the screenshots attached.

Did I miss something obvious? Have BHBH not introduced Marchi's defamatory tweets into the complaint yet?

Some of my concern about the conspiracy claim and other claims, like this, is that some of them aren't actually in the complaint itself. Especially concerning the conspiracy claim, I'm not seeing the smoking gun that there was an identified communication between the parties in which there was a meeting of the minds to pursue an unlawful act. Even though I believe there is such evidence in the record, and Huber's affidavit in particular, it isn't in the complaint itself.

Maybe it's in the proposed second amended petition. We'll see.

 

[Harvey Danger]

They haven't. TCPA doesn't address any argument beyond whether or not the plaintiff has the right to pursue his claim, so any evidence other than the plaintiff's assertion of damage isn't strictly necessary.

Sure, but unless I'm being blind or dumb, at this point the BHBH filings have repeatedly referenced Marchi's reference to "assault" without showing the damaging claim of assault. It's not shown in the original or amended complaints; the only time they've footnoted a reference, it was to a line in Monica's depo, which doesn't have the text of Marchi's story. Here's the paragraph from their TCPA response:



On top of the multiple grammar problems (this is one of the more hastily written parts of the filing), there's no footnote reference to either version of her story. Maybe that's a drafting error, but it just seems odd, especially across multiple filings.

They went through great pains to authenticate Toye's tweets, they submitted Monica's and Funimation's tweets as exhibits, but Marchi only has the "head and balls" tweet covered right now. That's sufficient for malice, but surely they need the damaging statements too, since Marchi is a separate party from MoRonica and Funimation? The TCPA filing directly addresses it as part of their prima facie case against Marchi, what if the judge wants to read the whole 4 page story?

Edit (due to not loading new messages while typing):

Some of my concern about the conspiracy claim and other claims, like this, is that some of them aren't actually in the complaint itself. Especially concerning the conspiracy claim, I'm not seeing the smoking gun that there was an identified communication between the parties in which there was a meeting of the minds to pursue an unlawful act. Even though I believe there is such evidence in the record, and Huber's affidavit in particular, it isn't in the complaint itself.

Maybe it's in the proposed second amended petition. We'll see.

I thought that was fine at the notice pleading level, but at TCPA when they're making a prima facie case they should've established the damaging statements at least.

The conspiracy seems to be implied by the totality, Nick is laying out the elements on stream as I type. But yeah, it's thin in the filing. Maybe it's sufficient to pass TCPA, or maybe they're planning to ambush in the hearing. IANAL but this reponse filing seems like a rough draft, you can see parts where the argument is sketched out but not fleshed out, and it needs another technical pass to fix errors.

 

[AnOminous]

On top of the multiple grammar problems (this is one of the more hastily written parts of the filing), there's no footnote reference to either version of her story. Maybe that's a drafting error, but it just seems odd, especially across multiple filings.

I continue to not like it. The TCPA, after all, is a ruling on the complaint itself, not everything else that has been filed.

 

[PrinceofAllCucks]

Sure, but unless I'm being blind or dumb, at this point the BHBH filings have repeatedly referenced Marchi's reference to "assault" without showing the damaging claim of assault. It's not shown in the original or amended complaints; the only time they've footnoted a reference, it was to a line in Monica's depo, which doesn't have the text of Marchi's story. Here's the paragraph from their TCPA response:

View attachment 919889

On top of the multiple grammar problems (this is one of the more hastily written parts of the filing), there's no footnote reference to either version of her story. Maybe that's a drafting error, but it just seems odd, especially across multiple filings.

They went through great pains to authenticate Toye's tweets, they submitted Monica's and Funimation's tweets as exhibits, but Marchi only has the "head and balls" tweet covered right now. That's sufficient for malice, but surely they need the damaging statements too, since Marchi is a separate party from MoRonica and Funimation? The TCPA filing directly addresses it as part of their prima facie case against Marchi, what if the judge wants to read the whole 4 page story?

There's evidently a 2nd amended petition that's been filed that'll soon be shown on the Rackets stream. Maybe it'll be addressed in the amendment.

 

[Gehenna]

I continue to not like it. The TCPA, after all, is a ruling on the complaint itself, not everything else that has been filed.

Question, could some of the issues here be acknowledge by the Judge to be caused by the games the defendants have played, and if acknowledged what recourse could the judge provide if any?

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Question, could some of the issues here be acknowledge by the Judge to be caused by the games the defendants have played, and if acknowledged what recourse could the judge provide if any?

Sanctions. Orders to compel. Contempt of court. Ect. Judges can do a lot if the defense pisses them off enough.

 

[AnOminous]

Question, could some of the issues here be acknowledge by the Judge to be caused by the games the defendants have played, and if acknowledged what recourse could the judge provide if any?

It's a really cold, callous decision and it's does the petition state a claim for relief. It either does or doesn't and doesn't matter why.

 

[Harvey Danger]

I continue to not like it. The TCPA, after all, is a ruling on the complaint itself, not everything else that has been filed.

Maybe the judge won't care. BHBH probably has a physical binder with all tweets that will be available at the hearing. And I only caught it because I'm playing super-autist and trying to document every single claim against Vic to date... but then again, lawyers are supposed to do that, too.

It would be a very interesting hearing if Marchi's lawyer stood up and said "what claims of assault has my client made, your honor? Do you see any such story in there?" They'd probably let BHBH submit it at the hearing or as an attachment to the depo. But Johnson could try it without being slapped for being a smug jackass, since he'd likely be right.

 

[The Singer Of Songs]

Alright, let's see what we got in the wake of this filing and the new one coming:

1) Ron and Monica
a) TI w/ contract - sealed (slatosch)
b) TI w/ future prospects - sealed (slatosch)
c) Conspiracy - sealed (slatosch/Huber)
d) Defamation per se - Sealed (slatosch/huber)

2) Funimation
a) TI w/ contract - well established but not sealed yet
b) TI w/future - Established but not sealed yet.
c) Conspiracy - sealed (Huber)
d) Vicarious liability - Sealed (huber/barreto)
e) defamation per se - Sealed (huber)

3) Marchi
a) TI w/ contract -Not well established yet
b) TI w/ future - Not well established yet
c) Conspiracy - Sealed (Huber/DM)
d) Defamation per se - Sealed (Huber/DMs/Tweets)

That's what I'm seeing. And I think that may be what Nick is seeing.

 

[10SorrowfulObject]

They haven't. TCPA doesn't address any argument beyond whether or not the plaintiff has the right to pursue his claim, so any evidence other than the plaintiff's assertion of damage isn't strictly necessary.

This isn’t quite right. TCPA is designed to deter frivolous complaints, and to survive the dismissal motion the plaintiff must provide “clear and specific evidence” to establish a prima facie showing of each essential element for each claim.

So Vic needs to show damages, and falsity.

 

[AnOminous]

This isn’t quite right. TCPA is designed to deter frivolous complaints, and to survive the dismissal motion the plaintiff must provide “clear and specific evidence” to establish a prima facie showing of each essential element for each claim.

So Vic needs to show damages, and falsity.

He doesn't need to show damages. Damages are assumed for defamation per se.

 

[PrinceofAllCucks]

This isn’t quite right. TCPA is designed to deter frivolous complaints, and to survive the dismissal motion the plaintiff must provide “clear and specific evidence” to establish a prima facie showing of each essential element for each claim.

So Vic needs to show damages, and falsity.

A sworn affidavit from Vic, along with being the non-moving party and having the benefit of gaining favor in light of the evidence, does enough to provide falsity of the statement. Also, as @AnOminous stated, damages are presumed from defamation per se, thus it's not necessary to provide evidence of damage. Even so, Vic provided a full list of conventions and estimations to how much he would've received from the conventions that canceled him based on the conventions he still had a contract with. Even if he doesn't have to show it, he still did for the sake of the argument that'll most likely come up during the hearing.

 

[Harvey Danger]

wow Nick's reading through the amended petition right now, the very last exhibit they added is exactly that tweet from Marchi. He said they filed it around 10:00 PM CST, that means they were adding it right when I was combing documents and threads to confirm they hadn't put it in the record.

Warms my little autist heart, that does.