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

[Immaculate Ape]

Maybe this is what Nick meant?

Nah, Nick has no idea how the tweets got to Chupp/Police. ALso he refuses to talk to the guy who made the tweets cause he doesn't want to "condone" the behavior

 

[fat ugly sped]

Except that TCPA dismissal means that Vic pays for their legal costs.

Note that the TCPA awards reasonable costs for filing and arguing the TCPA motion. It's not carte blanch to fuck around with discovery and then file a massive dumpster fire of a TCPA and get the other party to pay the costs you've managed to inflate.

 

[Immaculate Ape]

Note that the TCPA awards reasonable costs for filing and arguing the TCPA motion. It's not carte blanch to fuck around with discovery and then file a massive dumpster fire of a TCPA and get the other party to pay the costs you've managed to inflate.

And mediation gives an out. If the parties all agree on terms, they can scrap the TCPA and walk away, provided each party is satisfied with the settlement terms.

But, I think we all know what is going to happen with Monica "We'll never settle!" Rial

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Speaking as a spectator, my reaction to the whole thing was that as soon as he allowed Ty to start reading from the affidavits, he was entering them into the record officially.

You were just arguing that he provisionally allowed the affidavits. Chupp did not explicitly rule on the affidavits, saying that he'd "probably" let them in. What are you even doing, right now?

But, I think we all know what is going to happen with Monica "We'll never settle!" Rial

Well, her fiancé said that they would be forced to go to court but it ended up that they were forced to go to court because Vic forced them to. Both her and her fiancé kept talking about how Vic was going to be criminally charged but that never happened. Monica in particular keeps talking about how they had 27 women ready to go and cry about Vic giving them a tender hug like they were a long-lost friend, but they never came up after all, and she has yet to release the evidence she repeatedly said she would.

So, who knows? She might actually settle once the evidence against her case is properly arrayed in front of her, going back on her word again.

It's been suggested that they may have this mediation in separate rooms, particularly if anybody whinges about being literally unsafe about being in the same room as Vic. I hope they're forced to stay in the same room, even if they have to have security on standby just to make a reasonable attempt to appease the unappeasable.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

He was telling Dinky to kill himself. I know because he was responding to Dinky's sperg argument

Ooooh, anyone have a time code so I can see which argument he was responding to?

 

[Tour of Italy]

I don’t know man, I can see the motivation for the mediation swinging either way; Marchi does still have an interest in the case in terms of attorney’s fees so it makes sense for her to be there even if the dismissal holds up. Maybe Chupp is trying to throw Vic a bone by setting up a situation where he can mitigate his financial burden for the TCPA dismissal?

On the other hand, that theory falls apart considering Marchi would have no reason to negotiate if she were dismissed; Vic has zero leverage if that were the case. So unless the judge is exceptional enough to expect an emotional reconciliation and forgiveness to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, why throw her in the mix at all?

I wish the Judge would be clear about his intentions with the TCPA dismissals, because otherwise the mediation is going to be even more pointless. If he took all the attorneys into chambers and told them that everything is still on the table and you fucks better work it out, than that would change the character of the mediation considerably.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

I don’t know man, I can see the motivation for the mediation swinging either way; Marchi does still have an interest in the case in terms of attorney’s fees so it makes sense for her to be there even if the dismissal holds up. Maybe Chupp is trying to throw Vic a bone by setting up a situation where he can mitigate his financial burden for the TCPA dismissal?

On the other hand, that theory falls apart considering Marchi would have no reason to negotiate if she were dismissed; Vic has zero leverage if that were the case. So unless the judge is exceptional enough to expect an emotional reconciliation and forgiveness to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, why throw her in the mix at all?

I wish the Judge would be clear about his intentions with the TCPA dismissals, because otherwise the mediation is going to be even more pointless. If he took all the attorneys into chambers and told them that everything is still on the table and you fucks better work it out, than that would change the character of the mediation considerably.

Marchi might have a reason to negotiate if she wants Vic to do something. Even if she wins the lawsuit and gets all her fees paid for and gets money from sanctions, Vic might go on and talk about how unfair the whole thing was for years. However, as part of mediation, she can request Vic to apologize or agree to stop talking about the case or put out a statement she wants or any number of things.

 

[Imperial Agent]

Ooooh, anyone have a time code so I can see which argument he was responding to?

It was about how clear and specific evidence for TI with a contract was shown, and you’re an idiot for failing to understand that after having it explained countless times.

 

[teriyakiburns]

It's been suggested that they may have this mediation in separate rooms, particularly if anybody whinges about being literally unsafe about being in the same room as Vic. I hope they're forced to stay in the same room, even if they have to have security on standby just to make a reasonable attempt to appease the unappeasable.

For once this is an area in which I can speak from experience and I can tell you right now, that won't happen. Mediation is about trying to reach mutually agreeable compromise. The first compromise is getting them into a situation in which they'll agree to communicate, which likely (not definitely) precludes them being in the same room. Unfortunately that sort of shuttling mediation is the worst possible kind for everyone involved because of how indirect the communication is. It's generally only used as a last resort, or as a way to get the parties comfortable with being in the same room, but that requires a lot of time and more than one meeting, which I suspect would be unlikely to happen in this case.

Marchi might have a reason to negotiate if she wants Vic to do something. Even if she wins the lawsuit and gets all her fees paid for and gets money from sanctions, Vic might go on and talk about how unfair the whole thing was for years. However, as part of mediation, she can request Vic to apologize or agree to stop talking about the case or put out a statement she wants or any number of things.

As you are no doubt already aware, a judge won't order parties into mediation unless there is something to mediate with regards to the actual conflict between the parties involved. Your scenario of Marchi extracting an apology from Vic in exchange for fees - an implicit assignation of fault to Vic - is not on the table. That is not the conflict of the case. The conflict to be mediated is the claim and counter-claim of defamation.

This is not a settlement discussion. Mediation is about finding mutually acceptable compromise, without assigning blame or fault to any party. It is about healing divides and moving beyond them.

Settlement presumes fault, and is about reaching an agreement on the settlement of that fault in a way that allows the parties to end litigation without incurring too much cost.

These are very different outcomes.

 

[Wilhelm Bittrich]

You are just simply wrong on that.

Hi, Shane, how's it going lately?

 

[Pope of Degeneracy]

This is not a settlement discussion. Mediation is about finding mutually acceptable compromise, without assigning blame or fault to any party. It is about healing divides and moving beyond them.

I cant imagine Vic being screeched at by two whales and Captain Cuckhab doing anything to heal their relations.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

As you are no doubt already aware, a judge won't order parties into mediation unless there is something to mediate with regards to the actual conflict between the parties involved. Your scenario of Marchi extracting an apology from Vic in exchange for fees - an implicit assignation of fault to Vic - is not on the table. That is not the conflict of the case. The conflict to be mediated is the claim and counter-claim of defamation.

This is not a settlement discussion. Mediation is about finding mutually acceptable compromise, without assigning blame or fault to any party. It is about healing divides and moving beyond them.

Settlement presumes fault, and is about reaching an agreement on the settlement of that fault in a way that allows the parties to end litigation without incurring too much cost.

These are very different outcomes.

I'm interested - why is it not on the table? Mediation is very much a settlement discussion. It is an opportunity for all parties to agree upon terms and avoid the risk of the judge ruling against them. I mean, you can argue that it is not a likely outcome in this case, but it is an option, even if all the parties refuse it.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

I'm interested - why is it not on the table? Mediation is very much a settlement discussion. It is an opportunity for all parties to agree upon terms and avoid the risk of the judge ruling against them. I mean, you can argue that it is not a likely outcome in this case, but it is an option, even if all the parties refuse it.

It would be exceedingly strange for a Judge to order Mediation if there was no controversy for the court to settle.

Settlement is on the table, I agree, its just not going to happen, I can't see any situation in which Marchi would settle at this point, I don't think MoRon are emotionally capable at this point settling, and Funimation has little reason to as well

 

[N1bbaN3rd]

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.

Maybe Chupp is setting himself up to get recused from this trashfire?

 

[Red Wizard]

I'm interested - why is it not on the table? Mediation is very much a settlement discussion. It is an opportunity for all parties to agree upon terms and avoid the risk of the judge ruling against them. I mean, you can argue that it is not a likely outcome in this case, but it is an option, even if all the parties refuse it.

The one thing that keeps getting thrown around is "Why would the Judge order mediation, when there's no real incentive to come to an agreement?" And there really isn't too much of an incentive. There's a bunch of what-ifs and hypothetical scenarios where Vic loses out, and mitigating costs and such. But I don't think that's the case.

The one scenario that makes tons of sense here is if the Judge actually hands the mediator his "unofficial" ruling. This way, the outcome is on the table, and it suddenly creates a billion opportunities:

• It tells Marchi whether she's in/out and if she needs to mediate - right now, she's out, and has no reason to be there outside of goodwill.
• It gives Funimation/Ron/Monica an opportunity to settle without opening discovery back up. This is big, because if the TCPA gets dismissed for them, they are immediately subject to all the discovery they were dodging.
• Some of the charges being dismissed also gives them an opportunity to talk with Vic's council about costs and such.

The second scenario (if Ty arranged the mediation) is to give Ron/Monica/Funi the chance to bury skeletons in the closet. If this all gets dismissed, Vic's team could easily go scorched earth and just release all of the damning information they have in some court motion. I'm sure Funimation would have the most to lose here, and may agree to terms in an effort to make it disappear.

 

[RodgerDodger]

You seem to be confused again, so I'll help you. It is official. All claims against Jamie were dismissed from the bench by Chupp, and the only thing her lawyer need do for this portion of the litigation (up until the appeals, if any, get filed) is attempt to recover fees from Vic. Thus, her representative's presence at the conference should only consist of weighing the prospects of appeals versus the prospects of recovering damages from Vic.

Let me help you. Nothing regarding TCPA is official until Chupp puts it in writing and files it. If he should happen to blow his 30 day deadline for filing his written orders then the TCPA motion fails for all parties and it proceeds to trial on all causes of action. What he does verbally from the bench is not the final outcome. Only his written order filed within 30 days. There is rather binding case law regarding this. And yes I agree it is absurd, but it is what it is, and that’s how the higher Texas courts have ruled it. There was a recent case where the Judge dismissed all claims under TCPA from the bench, but failed to file the written ruling within the 30 day deadline. The Plaintiff Appealed and won because the Judge had not ruled within the statutory 30 days. The appeals court basically found the bench rulings on TCPA to merely be an expression of the Judges intent. But it doesn’t become a ruling until he files it. Interestingly it seems that in that ruling the higher courts created an unintentional Pocket Veto of TCPA. If the Judge doesn’t issue his written ruling within 30 days the motion fails and there is no interlocutory appeal.

 

[Soviras]

I'm interested - why is it not on the table? Mediation is very much a settlement discussion. It is an opportunity for all parties to agree upon terms and avoid the risk of the judge ruling against them. I mean, you can argue that it is not a likely outcome in this case, but it is an option, even if all the parties refuse it.

Mediation isn't really close to a settlement discussion, a lot more than a settlement could come out of mediation. In cases where parties are acting unreasonably, mediation (which involves a neutral third party) can help bring things into perspective so that things can move forward in the court case in a more reasonable fashion. The result of a succesful mediation could very well be the end of the public fight between the lawyers in the case and an agreement that they won't be playing games anymore, while the case still goes on. Settlement is just one possibility, and one that's often aimed for, but not the only one. That makes it different from a settlement discussion. If they can't come to a settlement, they may still reach a different type of agreement between the parties.

 

[teriyakiburns]

I'm interested - why is it not on the table?

Any fees associated with the TCPA would be a matter for the court, not the parties. It's not something that that they can negotiate in a settlement and definitely not in mediation.

eta to pre-empt argument on this point:

Sec. 27.009. DAMAGES AND COSTS. (a) If the court orders dismissal of a legal action under this chapter, the court shall award to the moving party:

(1) court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and other expenses incurred in defending against the legal action as justice and equity may require; and

(2) sanctions against the party who brought the legal action as the court determines sufficient to deter the party who brought the legal action from bringing similar actions described in this chapter.

(b) If the court finds that a motion to dismiss filed under this chapter is frivolous or solely intended to delay, the court may award court costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the responding party.

The court shall award. The parties don't get to negotiate it.

Mediation can often resemble a settlement discussion, which is where I can see your confusion arising, but settlement has clear delineations of responsiblity, fault, damage and compensation. It is problem-focused, whereas mediation is solution-focused, designed first to bring each of the parties to a point where each party can recognise, understand and empathise with the position of the other parties, then to bring them to a point where they can move beyond asssigning blame and fault, and demanding compensation, to a place where they can propose mutually agreeable solutions to their conflict that result in all parties being able to, if not be friends, then at least be non-hostile, with a view to improving relations in the future. Such matters as compensation rarely enter into the discussion, as that will place barriers to cooperation between the parties.

Again, I'm speaking from (painfully long and drawn out) experience on this matter. Court-ordered mediation is particularly difficult to manage, as it begins with hostile, mutually non-communicative parties who have been in long conflict and who are literally being forced to sit down together and set aside any desire for compensation in order to reach a compromise agreement.

Mediation requires all parties to abandon that idea and focus on mutual solutions. It might "settle" the pending lawsuit (though it should have been ordered at the very start of the case, right after the first motions were submitted - or even before that), but it is not a settlement discussion. Settlement in litigation requires one party to be "wrong" and the other "right" to a greater or lesser degree, with some action taken to settle the imbalance of justice between the wronged party and the wronging party. That is the antithesis of the mediation process.

 

[2lolis1cup]

Let me help you. Nothing regarding TCPA is official until Chupp puts it in writing and files it. If he should happen to blow his 30 day deadline for filing his written orders then the TCPA motion fails for all parties and it proceeds to trial on all causes of action. What he does verbally from the bench is not the final outcome. Only his written order filed within 30 days. There is rather binding case law regarding this. And yes I agree it is absurd, but it is what it is, and that’s how the higher Texas courts have ruled it. There was a recent case where the Judge dismissed all claims under TCPA from the bench, but failed to file the written ruling within the 30 day deadline. The Plaintiff Appealed and won because the Judge had not ruled within the statutory 30 days. The appeals court basically found the bench rulings on TCPA to merely be an expression of the Judges intent. But it doesn’t become a ruling until he files it. Interestingly it seems that in that ruling the higher courts created an unintentional Pocket Veto of TCPA. If the Judge doesn’t issue his written ruling within 30 days the motion fails and there is no interlocutory appeal.

I do think he might be thinking hard about this option.

He has thrown his hail mary in the form of mediation. He is praying this all goes away, since he has no reason other than that for mediation. Every party has a solid case of the judge prejudicing their case. Vic's is the most blatant and likely to be appealed though.

It would be real interesting if he delays the ruling until after the mediation. The mediation that just happens to take longer than his deadline. This would be a very nice appeal proof decision, that requires everything he has right now.

 

[instythot]

Mediation isn't really close to a settlement discussion, a lot more than a settlement could come out of mediation.

Here's a question. Maybe it's dumb.

The order didn't specify what the parties are ordered to mediate, and Chupp took pains to keep the order and hearing confidential. Is it within the realm of possibility that he's ordered them to mediation on acting like adults in public and not filing thousand page garbage heaps until the case is resolved?