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

[Sam Losco]

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 comment isn't reachable, they are

I don't think that rules out Marchi since the Judge never filed anything written saying she was out. No TCPA's have been granted except verbally during the hearing so technically, I think she's is still outstanding as well. However, I'm sure Nick will explain it during tonight's show.

 

[Slimy Time]

>Account is called "Law Twitter Throwaway"
>Week old account
>Engages only in Vic topics, instead of the site as a whole
>Obvious bait posting and being a dense motherfucker with the inability to comprehend what is written

Why does anyone give these faggots any time of day at all?

 

[Dumb Bitch Smoothie]

>Account is called "Law Twitter Throwaway"
>Week old account
>Engages only in Vic topics, instead of the site as a whole
>Obvious bait posting and being a dense motherfucker with the inability to comprehend what is written

Why does anyone give these faggots any time of day at all?

Greyhounds chasing a rabbit?

 

[LuNaS]

>Account is called "Law Twitter Throwaway"
>Week old account
>Engages only in Vic topics, instead of the site as a whole
>Obvious bait posting and being a dense motherfucker with the inability to comprehend what is written

Why does anyone give these faggots any time of day at all?

Mocking idiots and discussion on the legal matters is what this tread is about, mainly the second aspect while the first is more of a site wide thing, calling this guy stupid while presenting evidence of him actually being stupid is what this tread is all about. It's like breakfast in bed.

 

[Padoru]

>Account is called "Law Twitter Throwaway"
>Week old account
>Engages only in Vic topics, instead of the site as a whole
>Obvious bait posting and being a dense motherfucker with the inability to comprehend what is written

Why does anyone give these faggots any time of day at all?

if point 3 was a sign of being just some stupid faggot you must hate a lot of people here. I for one pretty much only engage in the Vic topics since i haven't bothered posting much of anything else. Fourth Point is the one i grant you absolutely though.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

It makes no sense to have Marchi there, as she would understandably and rightly be flipping off absolutely everybody and saying 'fuck you I'm not settling shit' And it would only create additoinal costs for plaintiff if here counts were indeed dismissed.

 

[quickthrowaway]

It's like breakfast in bed.

It gets crumbs everywhere?

 

[Slimy Time]

Mocking idiots and discussion on the legal matters is what this tread is about, mainly the second aspect while the first is more of a site wide thing, calling this guy stupid while presenting evidence of him actually being stupid is what this tread is all about. It's like breakfast in bed.

Really thought that was more the other threads, while this was for legal updates/discussion. I keep seeing it update and think something new/interesting has popped up, and its speds with week old accounts shitting up the thread.

if point 3 was a sign of being just some stupid faggot you must hate a lot of people here. I for one pretty much only engage in the Vic topics since i haven't bothered posting much of anything else. Fourth Point is the one i grant you absolutely though.

Fair enough. Forgot to add point 2.5 - Not bothering with a profile pic.

 

[LuNaS]

It gets crumbs everywhere?

Only if you are the type of idiot that puts toast in a breakfast in bed, only toast a BiB should have is French toast.

Also how do you guys think Ron would do in a mediation?

"So what do you think of this agreement?"
"I do not recall"

Edit, ok real legal discussion, do we know who is going to be the mediator? Or does someone knows what is the system to pick mediators?

 

[quickthrowaway]

Saw this floating around from Craig's camp so of course I'd like someone else to actually confirm it.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

So people think that Ty requested / demanded mediation? I didn't see any evidence of that... is that a misunderstanding?

I went to bed a few hours ago to nothing, came back to 20 new pages in each thread.

 

[Red Wizard]

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.

I think Chupp misreads the intention of the TCPA. He tries to quote "fairness" about repleads, not understanding that the TCPA in and of itself is biased in favor of the defendant. That's why the plaintiff gets so much leeway - prima facie, repleading repeatedly, etc. Chupp doesn't get that the defendant doesn't have to do squat after filing that motion - it's up to the plaintiff to defeat it. Also, the defendants AREN'T allowed to amend after their deadline, but the plaintiffs ARE allowed to replead all the way up to the hearing.

I personally think Chupp went in with his pants down, screwed up a bunch of shit because TCPAs are NOT NORMAL, went to chamber on the break, and went "oh shit he can do this stuff, this isn't quite what I expected" and corrected his assumptions in the second half. Thats why you see the disconnect before and after the break.

 

[BaldBoomerBoy]

Saw this floating around from Craig's camp so of course I'd like someone else to actually confirm it.

Is it really 100% legal for a judge to tell you to show up to mediation by order, by a specific party they designated, and make you split the bill? Every time I learn a new law fact it just makes me more disillusioned with the legal process and its complete disregard and disrespect for other people's time and money (same thing, really) in the pursuit of, allegedly, justice. Chupp gets to determine the rate of pay because he chooses who you get and you have to sit there and pay it, plus your lawyers, for no purpose that serves your best interests or the best interests of your case?

Someone please tell me thats not a real thing a judge can do and this is just Chupp being autistic.

 

[LuNaS]

So people think that Ty requested / demanded mediation? I didn't see any evidence of that... is that a misunderstanding?

I went to bed a few hours ago to nothing, came back to 20 new pages in each thread.

They think that is the case because of a commentary made by Ty, but there appears to be no evidence of that as of yet, the commentary was more along the lines of "this ain't over just yet, like I told you before"

 

[Zero Day Defense]

He provisionally allowed the affidavits in

And that doesn't completely screw the hearing at its root? "I may allow this evidence in, and I'll let you speak while referencing this evidence, but I may also throw out the evidence later as inadmissible because you got it in late and completely behead your on-the-record argumentation retroactively".

How could that possibly be okay?

 

[HTTP Error 404]

So to summarize.

1. Chupp didn't file any of the dismissals, ergo, all his verbal dismissals are NOT official. Jamie Marchi is back in the lawsuit, and everything is back on the table.
2. Chupp cited threats on his facebook, apparently, as a reasoning behind his actions. Which is ex parte by a 3rd party and a pretty huge fuckup, if only because he just let the chaos seekers know he's vulnerable to influence by them.
3. Ty may have requested the mediation?
4. The Mediation ends the day before the TCPA ruling period ends? Or the day of?

That sound about right?

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

Saw this floating around from Craig's camp so of course I'd like someone else to actually confirm it.

I'm hoping this thing will be filed in re:SearchTX. I don't like having to rely on Shane or The Douche for documents.

 

[LuNaS]

So to summarize.

1. Chupp didn't file any of the dismissals, ergo, all his verbal dismissals are NOT official. Jamie Marchi is back in the lawsuit, and everything is back on the table.
2. Chupp cited threats on his facebook, apparently, as a reasoning behind his actions. Which is ex parte by a 3rd party and a pretty huge fuckup, if only because he just let the chaos seekers know he's vulnerable to influence by them.
3. Ty may have requested the mediation?
4. The Mediation ends the day before the TCPA ruling period ends? Or the day of?

That sound about right?

1. Yes but no, the dismisals are valid but he can backtrack himself because they are not yet in a written document, bolded is a maybe, we don't know for sure yet, but it seems to be the case.

2. That appears to be the case.

3. Maybe but there is no evidence to support that as of yet.

4. It's the 30th or before I think, not sure of the limit date for TCPA.

Also we have the name of the mediator and it appears to be a Super Lawyer... So this at the very least is going to be interesting.

 

[AnOminous]

Saw this floating around from Craig's camp so of course I'd like someone else to actually confirm it.

I wonder if the judge can actually order that all parties bear the costs of mediation when TCPA requires otherwise and that the defendants get compensated for all reasonable costs and expenses. It would be hard to argue that expenses incurred obeying the court's direct order were not "reasonable."

Chupp gets to determine the rate of pay because he chooses who you get and you have to sit there and pay it, plus your lawyers, for no purpose that serves your best interests or the best interests of your case?

Pretty much. Think that's bad? Hope you never have to see a child custody dispute where one side gets to force the other side to pay an expert to find that they're a shit parent.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

For those of you who believe they have a more in depth knowledge of Texas law than Chupp and think he might regret his actions so far, then it would make sense to believe he is now using the mediation as an attempt to establish a settlement so nobody pursues this any farther and he doesn't get overruled.

The other option is something I brought up a few days ago:

This may be on the Judge's mind as well. Assuming he only hates Ty at this point and not Vic, it wouldn't be surprising for him to only force Vic to pay back the costs related to TCPA and not any additional sanctions.

If Chupp believe he has made correct rulings so far, then in light of what I posited above, he may be trying to save Vic from potential sanctions because he thinks Ty convinced him to bring forth a case without real merit (or at least that Ty was unable to properly argue the merits of). If Chupp may think Ty has not been quite honest with what failure of claims at TCPA stage means, then a third party mediator stating the current state of the lawsuit and expected damages (if no successful appeal) may come as a shock to Vic.