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

[Wazzupnerds]

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.

Chupp literally fucked himself the minute he made it clear he didn't care about the case and the bluntness of everything. The only reason his seat is not on more fucking fire is because of those Facebook comments.

 

[LuNaS]

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:


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.

Now this is an interesting point.

If TCPA payouts are off the table for the meditation hearing then Marchi has literally no reason to be in mediation unless Chupp is considering changing his ruling on her TCPA or her just being there because.

 

[AnOminous]

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.

They can settle anything and everything. They won't, but they can. They can settle anything before, during, or even after the TCPA, including dropping the fees even after they're awarded in return for not appealing, or anything they feel like. A lawsuit isn't a suicide pact.

Now, this won't happen, because this:

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.

This sounds a lot more like couples therapy. So far, they're at least capable of being in the same room together glaring at each other like angry cats so I think they may start in the same room, but I suppose we'll see. There really isn't time for that kind of shuttle diplomacy.

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.

That would make sense, though.

Maybe he's trying to use the uncertainty of it as pressure to come to a settlement before he does something uncertain, but I don't see either side thinking they're anything but completely right and either going to win here or on appeal. There's just no motivation here.

 

[fat ugly sped]

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:


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.

Except that the TCPA motion hasn't been ruled on, and if the parties engage in satisfactory mediation and withdraw all complaints and pending motions, then Judge Chupp won't issue a ruling on the TCPA. The court will be obligated to award no costs whatsoever, which means that the satisfactory mediation will be the sole determinant of what happens as a result of the lawsuit.

 

[Imperial Agent]

Except that the TCPA motion hasn't been ruled on, and if the parties engage in satisfactory mediation and withdraw all complaints and pending motions, then Judge Chupp won't issue a ruling on the TCPA. The court will be obligated to award no costs whatsoever, which means that the satisfactory mediation will be the sole determinant of what happens as a result of the lawsuit.

Jamie’s TCPA was ruled on. Ruling from the bench is ruling.

That ruling can still be either reconsidered or appealed, but it is there.

 

[Polyboros2]

My assumption is, that Chupp wants this out of his court, but knows he fucked up and this is a sure fire appeal. He's hoping mediation will end it and get it out of his hair forever, but if not, he'll throw it all out on TCPA and worry about it after the appeal. I really wish they're was punishment for judges fucking up on the law.

 

[Judge Dredd]

Refresh my memory, which parties were the ones playing all sorts of games to delay having to hand over discovery materials?

It wasn't Vic. It was the defense. They absolutely do not want discovery to happen because they know it would be an utter disaster for them. Vic's dirty laundry has already been aired, in comparison, because he did not play games.

The only exception would be if there's some giant skeleton in Vic's closet we don't know about. But that skeleton would have to be well hidden for it to not have been spread across Twitter by now.

Whatever does come out is discovery, KickVic is going to spin it to make him look bad.

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

I wonder why they even bother trying this "bait" or "trolling" at all. They waste their own time, and make themselves and whatever side they're on look foolish.

 

[fat ugly sped]

Jamie’s TCPA was ruled on. Ruling from the bench is ruling.

That ruling can still be either reconsidered or appealed, but it is there.

See this:

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.

The bench ruling isn't official until it's in writing, and if the parties settle in mediation and ask Chupp to basically drop everything because things are settled, then why would Chupp issue a moot TCPA ruling and waste court resources?

Like, this is one of the advantages of the adversarial legal system. If the two parties in a civil dispute agree on how it will be resolved, the courts will generally just drop things and call their work done. I wouldn't be surprised if the mediation resulted in Vic and Marchi deciding that Marchi's attorney fees are reasonable, so Vic winds up getting an apology and some cooperation in discovery, Marchi gets her attorney fees without fighting over the reasonableness of it, all claims from the events in question get dropped with prejudice, and everyone just calls it a day instead of risking further shenanigans and appeals.

 

[Soviras]

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?

That certainly is possible. It would be unconventional to go to mediation just for that, but it wouldn't be the only unconventional thing about it either.

Jamie’s TCPA was ruled on. Ruling from the bench is ruling.

That ruling can still be either reconsidered or appealed, but it is there.

Except that, for the TCPA, only the final ruling matters. The judge can dismiss everything during the hearing, but if it's not written down in the final ruling for the TCPA, it doesn't count. If the judge misses the deadline for the ruling, than no matter what he said or ruled on during the hearing, the entire TCPA would fail and every cause of action moves on. It's weird, yes, and it's certainly far from a standard way of handling it, but somehow it ended up that way. The TCPA is stupid.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

Judges generally don't change their mind on a ruling from the bench - but if the parties come to an "amicable" settlement agreement, then I could see Chupp withdrawing his bench ruling because the parties have agreed to a settlement.

From Ty's perspective, he has to either convince either Vic or the defendants that the judge has ruled incorrectly, in order to stop Vic from settling or convince the defendants to settle. I can't see the defendants agreeing to settle at this point: they have the higher ground currently and most lawyers seem to think they will come out on top.

From the defendant's perspective, they need to convince Vic he is screwed and he should settle while he is at his lowest point. For those out on all charges? They might be willing to settle for all costs if they get some statement from Vic that benefits them.

I would be a little surprised if Vic settled for paying fees right now, but I would be absolutely shocked if the defendants agreed to pay anything to make this go away.

 

[Nontransferable]

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.

From the Dallas Morning News article:
On Sept. 17, 11 days after the hearing, Chupp called attorneys for both sides to his courtroom and ordered them to mediate by Oct. 3. If mediation is not successful, he told the lawyers, he would rule on all outstanding orders the following day.

 

[2lolis1cup]

From the Dallas Morning News article:
On Sept. 17, 11 days after the hearing, Chupp called attorneys for both sides to his courtroom and ordered them to mediate by Oct. 3. If mediation is not successful, he told the lawyers, he would rule on all outstanding orders the following day.

While I believe this is most likely, I can't take it as fact. Dallas Morning News has proven to lie about things, so their credibility is questionable at best.

I would need the judge to put in writing or one of the lawyers to state they heard the judges say it.

 

[Padoru]

From Ty's perspective, he has to either convince either Vic or the defendants that the judge has ruled incorrectly, in order to stop Vic from settling or convince the defendants to settle. I can't see the defendants agreeing to settle at this point: they have the higher ground currently and most lawyers seem to think they will come out on top.

From the defendant's perspective, they need to convince Vic he is screwed and he should settle while he is at his lowest point. For those out on all charges? They might be willing to settle for all costs if they get some statement from Vic that benefits them.

I would be a little surprised if Vic settled for paying fees right now, but I would be absolutely shocked if the defendants agreed to pay anything to make this go away.

okay let me clarify for mental rejects like you: There wont be any settlement in this mediation. It is COMPLETELY out of the question simply because the endgoals of both parties CAN NOT align. The Faggot Tribe wants Vic out and dead they have no interest in settling because THEY CAN'T WIN ON SETTLMENT. ONLY Vic can benefit from a settlment because IF Vic were to lose, which he wont stop sucking lawtwitter dick and actually read the cases you qouted, he'd owe the attorney fees nothing more. If Vic wins MoRon, Funi and Marchi get the big dick of the law rammed up their asses. Their ONLY WINCON is winning the lawsuit/getting it dismissed. Vic has a bunch of wincons along the way.

You don't even need to respond to this because you'll get shit wrong on purpose again and i wont fall for it twice.

 

[LuNaS]

My assumption is, that Chupp wants this out of his court, but knows he fucked up and this is a sure fire appeal. He's hoping mediation will end it and get it out of his hair forever, but if not, he'll throw it all out on TCPA and worry about it after the appeal. I really wish they're was punishment for judges fucking up on the law.

If that is indeed the case there is a much easier way for Chupp to accomplish it, which is not ruling on the TCPAs, in that case there is case law that makes an appeal pretty much impossible, I mean they can try but case law makes it so the chances of them succeeding in appeals is very low.

After that Chupp would still have to deal with the case, this time in court but him just passing all TCPAs would be easy to appeal because he had obvious errors in how he did the hearing, filling his rulings opens him up to appeals from either side no matter what, not filling them and letting TCPA be dismissed due to that makes it so while the defendants can appeal, it would be an uphill battle.

And no just passing all TCPAs doesn't release him from this hell because the appeals court could just bounce it back to him with a reprimand.

I mean both are an option, but if I were the judge I would take the option that is less likely to result in my description being appealed.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

okay let me clarify for mental rejects like you: There wont be any settlement in this mediation. It is COMPLETELY out of the question simply because the endgoals of both parties CAN NOT align. The Faggot Tribe wants Vic out and dead they have no interest in settling because THEY CAN'T WIN ON SETTLMENT. ONLY Vic can benefit from a settlment because IF Vic were to lose, which he wont stop sucking lawtwitter dick and actually read the cases you qouted, he'd owe the attorney fees nothing more. If Vic wins MoRon, Funi and Marchi get the big dick of the law rammed up their asses. Their ONLY WINCON is winning the lawsuit/getting it dismissed. Vic has a bunch of wincons along the way.

You don't even need to respond to this because you'll get shit wrong on purpose again and i wont fall for it twice.

From Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code:

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 letter of the law states that that if the case is dismissed at the TCPA stage, the court must award sanctions. HOWEVER, the courts have ruled that this is not actually a requirement if the court determines that the plaintiff is not likely to file similar actions in the future (see Alisa Rich v. Range Resources Corporation). If you were to have some statements from the plaintiff or his lawyer suggesting that you are going to sue more people (perhaps about there being some sort of "round two") and you have not been repentant enough in the eyes of the court, sanctions are more likely to happen beyond the optional nominal amount.

 

[Imperial Agent]

Except that, for the TCPA, only the final ruling matters. The judge can dismiss everything during the hearing, but if it's not written down in the final ruling for the TCPA, it doesn't count. If the judge misses the deadline for the ruling, than no matter what he said or ruled on during the hearing, the entire TCPA would fail and every cause of action moves on. It's weird, yes, and it's certainly far from a standard way of handling it, but somehow it ended up that way. The TCPA is stupid.

The dismissals were “final rulings” in this context. They are not final as in “absolute” but they are final absent a reconsideration or appeal.

A bench ruling is not a failure to issue a ruling. It is not saying “I think/plan to rule X”. He ruled on Marchi and conspiracy claims. Those stand unless some new order changes that.

RodgerDodger mentioned case precedent, but I didn’t see a citation. The only case law that I’ve seen presented is pretty clear that a verbal ruling is final, and the written order is simply a memorialization of it (similar to a contract).

Even Nick last night said it was a ruling.

 

[AnOminous]

The dismissals were “final rulings” in this context. They are not final as in “absolute” but they are final absent a reconsideration or appeal.

A bench ruling is not a failure to issue a ruling. It is not saying “I think/plan to rule X”. He ruled on Marchi and conspiracy claims. Those stand unless some new order changes that.

RodgerDodger mentioned case precedent, but I didn’t see a citation. The only case law that I’ve seen presented is pretty clear that a verbal ruling is final, and the written order is simply a memorialization of it (similar to a contract).

Even Nick last night said it was a ruling.

That's why I think a notice of appeal should be filed within 20 days even if it's based entirely on the transcript, just to avoid even a ghost of an argument about whether the notice of appeal was timely filed.

 

[teriyakiburns]

They can settle anything before, during, or even after the TCPA, including dropping the fees

My mistake. I had assumed the shall in legal language was a pretty firm line in the sand. I'd forgotten about afterwards...

This sounds a lot more like couples therapy

Essentially, yes. Marriage counselling is mediation by another name, the techniques are little different from the sort of mediation that takes place between antagonistic warlords.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

That's why I think a notice of appeal should be filed within 20 days even if it's based entirely on the transcript, just to avoid even a ghost of an argument about whether the notice of appeal was timely filed.

Can Ty even appeal until the case is done in regards to all parties?

 

[AnOminous]

Can Ty even appeal until the case is done in regards to all parties?

If they let him. He absolutely can't if a notice of appeal isn't timely filed, though. I'm pretty sure that 20 day clock starts ticking on the issuance of a written order. But I wouldn't believe anything is certain at this point.