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

[NotaLolyer]

He really, really did make clear, several times, that he wasn't considering the 2nd Amended Petition. He provisionally allowed the affidavits in, but considering they were originally attached to the 8/30 filing and certainly weren't the only new things in there, that's not saying much.

Where? He kept saying later and maybe and perhaps.

 

[lawtwitterthrowaway]

MR. BEARD: Are we including the second amended pleadings or not?

THE COURT: I don't think so.

Page 38 of the transcript. And I mean, this comes after Sam Johnson's presentation, which itself was proceeded by Chupp slapping Ty silly in regards to why the 2nd Amended Petition was bad and stupid and an attempted endrun around giving opposing counsel time to argue against his filing (which, let me tell you, courts take very seriously)

 

[Gehenna]

Page 38 of the transcript.

I don't think so is not a No, it is not definitive.

 

[lawtwitterthrowaway]

I don't think so is not a No, it is not definitive.

Considering the rest of the hearing had Ty scrambling for what was in his first pleading, I'm more than confident it's a No. And a fairly definitive one, at that.

 

[NotaLolyer]

Considering the rest of the hearing had Ty scrambling for what was in his first pleading, I'm more than confident it's a No. And a fairly definitive one, at that.

You missed the part where Ty blew that off and verbatim started reading from the 2aP unopposed, and no it wasn’t just the affidavits in the 8-30 filing.

 

[lawtwitterthrowaway]

You missed the part where Ty blew that off and verbatim started reading from the 2aP unopposed, and no it wasn’t just the affidavits in the 8-30 filing.

You clearly missed pages 40-43, where the judge...well, I'll let his words speak for themselves.

THE COURT: And I'll tell you, as far as the second amended petition is, I don't think I can consider it, because we would never have a hearing like this, because you would always file a petition right before -- a new petition right before, and it would void everything that was filed before it.
It's not fair to them to file their motion to dismiss, and you not file a proper response to it, and then you come in and amend your petition, which may nullify what their motion to dismiss is. At some point in time we have to have a motion to dismiss hearing. And you can't just keep repleading to get around it. Because that's what you're doing, is you're repleading bad stuff to get around the motion to dismiss, when your -- when obviously you thought your first amended petition was deficient.

THE COURT: Yeah, I mean, I'll probably consider the affidavits, as far as your response, but not your new pleading, not your second amended petition. That's -- obviously you're trying to get around the rules. I mean, so I have read them, so I mean, I know what they say. It's going to be hard for me to put them out of my mind now that I've read them any way.

MR. BEARD: Yes, Your Honor. You didn't get an accurate copy of the email.

THE COURT: I don't -- I'm not worried about that. I'm worried about the cause of action that you have against Ms. Marchi and the tweets that are in your first amended petition, because that's the petition we're here about, because you didn't file the second amended petition until after you did the affidavits wrong.

The 2aP is dead, dead, dead.

 

[ddlloo]

You clearly missed pages 40-43, where the judge...well, I'll let his words speak for themselves.
The 2aP is dead, dead, dead.

That's not a ruling.

 

[Gehenna]

You clearly missed pages 40-43, where the judge...well, I'll let his words speak for themselves.
The 2aP is dead, dead, dead.

You are missing the word PROBABLY in there. Again, not definitive. This is one of the specific examples of where if either party had been on the ball, this could have been solved. Either Chupp saying a flat yes or no, or Ty pressing for a flat yes or no.

Edit: The worst part about that bit quoted, I do see Chupp's point. And even agree. But he hems and haws, saying things like "probably" as if he is STILL CONSIDERING it, leaning TOWARDS no, but has not yet decided. That, for being in the middle of the trial, is just awful for the legal process.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

The more appropriate response to this sped is 'Hoes Mad'

 

[GRB86]

Considering the rest of the hearing had Ty scrambling for what was in his first pleading, I'm more than confident it's a No. And a fairly definitive one, at that.

You are missing the word PROBABLY in there. Again, not definitive. This is one of the specific examples of where if either party had been on the ball, this could have been solved. Either Chupp saying a flat yes or no, or Ty pressing for a flat yes or no.

I was in the court for this hearing, If I am not mistaken, later in the day the Judge affirmed the information, in the gallery alot of us looked at each other because we were confused, he never made it clear. (Chupp)

 

[Gehenna]

I was in the court for this hearing, If I am not mistaken, later in the day the Judge affirmed the information, in the gallery alot of us looked at each other because we were confused, he never made it clear. (Chupp)

It looks, to me, like he doesn't have a solid legal backing to refuse it, but has a good argument outside of the legal procedure for it, and isn't sure where he should come down on it. Probably especially because there was no ruling on the late supplement filings, and he could see that also being brought up later. I get the quandry he was in, but he should have decided that before the trial and it didn't seem like he fully decided even during.

 

[lawtwitterthrowaway]

You are missing the word PROBABLY in there.

He's saying he'll "PROBABLY consider the affidavits, as far as your response, but not your new pleading, not your second amended petition". You're clearly grasping at straws here. "I'm worried about the cause of action that you have against Ms. Marchi and the tweets that are in your first amended petition, because that's the petition we're here about, " could not get any more clear. The 2aP was dead in the water from the very first, and Chupp took the time to lecture Ty about why it ended up that way.

 

[NotaLolyer]

You clearly missed pages 40-43, where the judge...well, I'll let his words speak for themselves.
The 2aP is dead, dead, dead.

Paragraph one is Chupp literally telling the plaintiff he’s not allowed to do what the rules say he’s allowed to do, the rest is still not a ruling. It was an opinion on Marchis matter.
The ruling on Marchi was dismissed but Ty brought in exactly what Chupp asked for from the first petition after the break.... You missed that part yet again.

I’ll say it again, after Marchi Ty read from the 2aP verbatim despite Chupp having said he read it and it went unopposed.

That looks definitive to you?

 

[LuNaS]

The more appropriate response to this sped is 'Hoes Mad'

I still think we need a rating for this kind of people, maybe Illiterate would work?

Also at the very least he is trying to defend the Lawtwitter points, he is failing because partially well he is himself, so failure must be is SOP, if following lawtwitter is any indication, and also because trying to defend someone that is wrong tends to result in failure.

He should know that unless you have a solid statement from the judge we can't determine if he made a ruling, hell even with solid rulings there is still the chance of the judge backpedaling.

 

[lawtwitterthrowaway]

Paragraph one is Chupp literally telling the plaintiff he’s not allowed to do what the rules say he’s allowed to do, the rest is still not a ruling. It was an opinion on Marchis matter.
The ruling on Marchi was dismissed but Ty brought in exactly what Chupp asked for from the first petition after the break.... You missed that part yet again.

Paragraph one is Chupp literally telling the plaintiff he wasn't allowed to do the things he did, and that the rules prohibit doing them. And yes, Ty had to dig through the first petition for his evidence there. Instead of getting that from the 2aP, because that was out.

I’ll say it again, after Marchi Ty read from the 2aP verbatim despite Chupp having said he read it and it went unopposed.

Go ahead, show me the reciepts. I'm a patient person.

 

[Sam Losco]

I still think we need a rating for this kind of people, maybe Illiterate would work?

How about a "Faggot" rating and the icon is a bundle of sticks?

Edit to be OT - This:
https://twitter.com/NickRekieta/status/1174120761994502145
https://archive.fo/8fH1N

So I believe that even if Chupp said the 2ap was out, he can go back on that. This also holds water considering that ALL parties have been ordered to mediation, including Marchi.

 

[BaldBoomerBoy]

How about a "Faggot" rating and the icon is a bundle of sticks?

Super Lawyer with a little cape and an S would be fine.

 

[NotaLolyer]

Paragraph one is Chupp literally telling the plaintiff he wasn't allowed to do the things he did, and that the rules prohibit doing them. And yes, Ty had to dig through the first petition for his evidence there. Instead of getting that from the 2aP, because that was out.

Go ahead, show me the reciepts. I'm a patient person.

No, paragraph one is Chupp complaining about Ty using the rules to replead which he’s allowed to do but is “unfair” despite the rules allowing him to do so.

Paragraph two is the judge suggesting Ty is TRYING to get around the rules despite being allowed to replead and suggesting that the burden is the rule 11 agreement despite Ty being allowed He’s suggesting the defense is burdened by a legal replead within the rules. It’s up to the defense to show burden and they would definitely fail that at appeals with how much they burdened Ty first.

Paragraph three affirms this is about Marchis matter and despite Ty giving Chupp what he wants Chupp remarked about his bench ruling already being done (appealable and reconsiderable)

You have the receipts, You refuse to read them.

 

[Zǒngtǒng bǐ dēng wànsuì]

How about a "Faggot" rating and the icon is a bundle of sticks?

Edit to be OT - This:
https://twitter.com/NickRekieta/status/1174120761994502145
https://archive.fo/8fH1N
View attachment 939440

So I believe that even if Chupp said the 2ap was out, he can go back on that. This also holds water considering that ALL parties have been ordered to mediation, including Marchi.

Apparently not Marchi if you go by dallas news

John Michael Kelly ⚜️ on Twitter

“@NickRekieta So, wait, did the Dallas reporter misquote the judge or are you just an idiot? https://t.co/y4UbsNvGTi”

twitter.com

The actual link/comment post referred to in the tweet isn't reachable atm

 

[Sheryl Nome]

I'm sure Nick can clarify