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

Yes, if Ty can prove there were damages, thats all it takes to pass a test of prima facie evidence. Thats literally all it takes. He does not need to provide a number.

Since you seem to love to try to get people to dig up cases, can you find a case with authority where FAILURE to bring a specific number, even after establishing that there was in fact damage, was not sufficient to pass the TCPA?
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, NotaLolyer and Immaculate Ape
I think you're very confused if you think Ty hasn't asserted a number value of damages in this case, but you have been asserting that because he didn't say 'X amount of that was from this specific TI' which is retarded
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Immaculate Ape
DinkyCowSow said:
No, because I can't seem to find a single case where that has ever even been attempted. I can find plenty of cases where people provided damages and passed, but I seriously haven't found a single case where somebody tried to prove damages without listing a number.

That's why I don't think this is a settled area of law.
Click to expand...
People assert damages without listing a value all the time, Injunctions are issued on the basis that some things cannot be solved with money, it is impossible for the plaintiff to put a money value on such things. Damage is simply a loss or harm. Vic can't put a price tag on his reputation, its hard for vic to put a price tag on any given convention.

By definition, a contract being broken is actual harm. Having to make a new materially different contract is actual damage and harm. Its not something thats easy to put a number on, and one doesn't need to at this stage. They simply have to assert that there was in fact, damage.

Ty is asking for 1 million dollars in damages for everything, he's not saying that KC alone was 1 million, nor does he need break down the damage of each event. He simply needs to show that damage flowed.

Per Se defamation passes the TCPA as a rule on this because damage is presumed, there was damage, Per Se Defamation does not have a specific value attached. Thats for a separate pleading and a separate argument that is not part of the TCPA process.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Kosher Salt, ShinyStar, Botchy Galoop and 4 others
So, I've been busy the last couple of days, are we back to doom and gloom or something? Did anything happen?
 
Crabbo said:
Well... Im sorry guys. This is all my fault.
A few weeks ago I wished for an individual from KV to come and provide a devils advocate for the other side.
I forgot to tell the genie I wanted one that was intelligent, not one that would just repeat itself while saying 'Youre wrong, just wrong' over and over.
Click to expand...
There's plenty to advocate for, but arguing the TI when its basically an ironclad claim is dumb.
 
Sheryl Nome said:
People assert damages without listing a value all the time, Injunctions are issued on the basis that some things cannot be solved with money, it is impossible for the plaintiff to put a money value on such things. Damage is simply a loss or harm. Vic can't put a price tag on his reputation, its hard for vic to put a price tag on any given convention.

By definition, a contract being broken is actual harm. Having to make a new materially different contract is actual damage and harm. Its not something thats easy to put a number on, and one doesn't need to at this stage. They simply have to assert that there was in fact, damage.

Ty is asking for 1 million dollars in damages for everything, he's not saying that KC alone was 1 million, nor does he need break down the damage of each event. He simply needs to show that damage flowed.

Per Se defamation passes the TCPA as a rule on this because damage is presumed, there was damage, Per Se Defamation does not have a specific value attached. Thats for a separate pleading and a separate argument that is not part of the TCPA process.
Click to expand...
We are not just talking about generic damages. We are talking about "actual damages", which has a definition. It can technically be non-economic (anguish, emotional pain, loss of limb), but that is not what Ty is asserting. Ty is asserting Vic suffered economic loss, the loss of income. The contract being broken is not enough to prove actual damage.

He does need to provide clear and specific prima facie evidence for each element of each action, and one of the elements for TIEC is actual damage.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Emm, Coach Kreeton Of All That, ConSluttant and 7 others
DinkyCowSow said:
We are not just talking about generic damages. We are talking about "actual damages", which has a definition. It can technically be non-economic (anguish, emotional pain, loss of limb), but that is not what Ty is asserting. Ty is asserting Vic suffered economic loss, the loss of income. The contract being broken is not enough to prove actual damage.

He does need to provide clear and specific prima facie evidence for each element of each action, and one of the elements for TIEC is actual damage.
Click to expand...
A contract being broken is actually enough to prove actual damage, there is an absolute right to recover damage suffered by a breach of contract and the damage was clearly suffered because Vic has to hire a lawyer and get a new, materially different contract. Thats actual damage. Thats enough.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Emm, Kosher Salt, MightyBiteySnake and 5 others
"Guys the contract was broken, I had to hire a lawyer, I managed to get a new contract that was materially different and required all sorts of stipulations as well as requiring me to pay for security which I didn't have to before, but there's absolutely no way someone could make a rational inference from this that I suffered monetary damage. Its just not possible. It can't be done. There's simply no way a rational person could infer that I suffered monetary damage from this event unless I show them the details of my finances"

Why is 'rational inference' so hard to understand. Oh right, he's a bird brain.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Kosher Salt, ShinyStar, Botchy Galoop and 7 others
Sheryl Nome said:
"Guys the contract was broken, I had to hire a lawyer, I managed to get a new contract that was materially different and required all sorts of stipulations as well as requiring me to pay for security which I didn't have to before, but there's absolutely no way someone could make a rational inference from this that I suffered monetary damage. Its just not possible. It can't be done. There's simply no way a rational person could infer that I suffered monetary damage from this event unless I show them the details of my finances"

Why is 'rational inference' so hard to understand. Oh right, he's a bird brain.
Click to expand...

He's literally chanting the exact same talking points that Law Twitter does. Getting the laws exactly the same way wrong, too. It's frankly kinda eerie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dynamite Ninja, Botchy Galoop, The Demon Pimp of Razgriz and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back