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

AnOminous said:
The Texas rules have been modified since to make it explicit that deadline times at least in the trial court are calculated from the entry of a written judgment, but the general principle should still stand.
Click to expand...

In the case of the TCPA, I thought that verbal judgments had no authority. Isn't that the basis for the case which established the 'pocket veto' aspect? As I recall, the judge made verbal rulings from the bench but failed to render written judgment by the deadline and so the TCPA motion to dismiss was denied.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ConSluttant
JohnDoe said:
In the case of the TCPA, I thought that verbal judgments had no authority. Isn't that the basis for the case which established the 'pocket veto' aspect? As I recall, the judge made verbal rulings from the bench but failed to render written judgment by the deadline and so the TCPA motion to dismiss was denied.
Click to expand...
Nick made it sound like in that case, the judge didn't give any firm decisions just said he would probably lean towards a certain verdict but never gave a definite answer. Chupp has given definite answers, so now its how he plays the last few charges and if the defendants appeal to see where it goes.
 
2lolis1cup said:
We spent 5 or so pages trying to get it to read. It never learned how to, but it just keeps on going. It like an autism power energizer bunny.

TCPA hearings are also not trials, since they don't have a jury btw.
Click to expand...
Alright so your argument is you can amend on the TCPA as late as you want because it doesn't have a jury. Let's see how that works out with the next thing you said.

2lolis1cup said:
Come on I know you can read!!!

lets do this I even highlighted things for you.

Trial T R I A L it spells trial.

TCPA hearing T C P A it means Texas Civil Participation Act

Summary judgement hearing

Now follow along bird brain what are the three things we are trying to remember?

yes that's right Trial, TCPA, and Summary judgement hearing

It's important we remember these thing are not the same word. If you can remember this I will let you play with some toy trains.
Click to expand...
You just said that you don't have to follow rule 63 at TCPA stage because it doesn't have a jury. I pointed out that the standard summary judgment process which does not have a jury, does require you to follow rule 63, because it IS a hearing on the merits of the case, and hearing on the merits of the case DO COUNT AS A TRIAL.

Now I'd suggest taking a look at the definition of summary judgment. "Summary judgment is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party without a full trial."

Guess what? The TCPA is an extension of then normal summary judgment rules. It allows the court to do an earlier summary judgment on a case without having to go through expensive discovery if the plaintiff is unable to present all of the basic elements of their case. It does not have a full trial, like the standard summary judgment process, and it does have a hearing on the merits of the case, like the standard summary judgment process. So it counts as a trial under rule 63, so you cannot amend your petitions late.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That, Kosher Salt, LuNaS and 3 others
DinkyCowSow said:
Alright so your argument is you can amend on the TCPA as late as you want
Click to expand...
Not it is not. The argument is that you can amend your petition up to 7 days before trial. The TCPA hearing is not trial. TCPA motions are not motions for summary judgement. Ty amended the petition, which was not covered by the rule 11 agreement, is not covered by limitations on TCPA and is not covered by rule 63 for this purpose because the TCPA hearing is not a trial.

Jesus christ you're dense.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Kosher Salt, Yuusha-sama, ConSluttant and 13 others
teriyakiburns said:
Not it is not. The argument is that you can amend your petition up to 7 days before trial. The TCPA hearing is not trial. TCPA motions are not motions for summary judgement. Ty amended the petition, which was not covered by the rule 11 agreement, is not covered by limitations on TCPA and is not covered by rule 63 for this purpose because the TCPA hearing is not a trial.

Jesus christ you're dense.
Click to expand...
TCPA motions are motions for summary judgment. They are asking the judge to rule on the merits of the case before a full trial. TCPA hearings are hearings on the merits of the case. Hearings on the merits of the case do count as a trial for the purpose of rule 63.

Already walked through the reasons why, feel free to read them again.
 
  • Dumb
  • Disagree
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That, Kosher Salt, Yuusha-sama and 13 others
DinkyCowSow said:
TCPA motions are motions for summary judgment. They are asking the judge to rule on the merits of the case before a full trial. TCPA hearings are hearings on the merits of the case. Hearings on the merits of the case do count as a trial for the purpose of rule 63.

Already walked through the reasons why, feel free to read them again.
Click to expand...
"I have an iq below room temperature" is not a valid reason for anything other than applying for disability. Try again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ConSluttant, Allanon, The Demon Pimp of Razgriz and 1 other person
DinkyCowSow said:
TCPA motions are motions for summary judgment. They are asking the judge to rule on the merits of the case before a full trial. TCPA hearings are hearings on the merits of the case. Hearings on the merits of the case do count as a trial for the purpose of rule 63.

Already walked through the reasons why, feel free to read them again.
Click to expand...
You've had multiple pages of citations and explanations as to why your position is utter bullshit. Repeating yourself and claiming you won just makes you look like a sped.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allanon, Zero Day Defense, The Demon Pimp of Razgriz and 2 others
DinkyCowSow said:
Alright so your argument is you can amend on the TCPA as late as you want because it doesn't have a jury. Let's see how that works out with the next thing you said.


You just said that you don't have to follow rule 63 at TCPA stage because it doesn't have a jury. I pointed out that the standard summary judgment process which does not have a jury, does require you to follow rule 63, because it IS a hearing on the merits of the case, and hearing on the merits of the case DO COUNT AS A TRIAL.

Now I'd suggest taking a look at the definition of summary judgment. "Summary judgment is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party without a full trial."

Guess what? The TCPA is an extension of then normal summary judgment rules. It allows the court to do an earlier summary judgment on a case without having to go through expensive discovery if the plaintiff is unable to present all of the basic elements of their case. It does not have a full trial, like the standard summary judgment process, and it does have a hearing on the merits of the case, like the standard summary judgment process. So it counts as a trial under rule 63, so you cannot amend your petitions late.
Click to expand...
You were so close Bird brain. You almost learned the difference of words, but you got a usage wrong. I'll only let you play with one toy train, until you can figure out why.

Here is a hint the three words we are looking at are not the same! Try to remember this. I know you can learn to read!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1Tonka_Truck
2lolis1cup said:
You were so close Bird brain. You almost learned the difference of words, but you got a usage wrong. I'll only let you play with one toy train, until you can figure out why.

Here is a hint the three words we are looking at are not the same! Try to remember this. I know you can learn to read!
Click to expand...
The only argument I've seen actually be made with any citations is that "rule 63 doesn't apply to hearings on jurisdiction". The TCPA hearing is not a hearing on the jurisdiction, it is a hearing on the merits of the case.

My argument is not that the TCPA is exactly the same as the standard summary judgment procedure in Texas. But, it is still a procedure that allows for the judge to make a summary judgment (i.e. a judgment without going to a full trial) based on the merits of the case. And hearings on the merits of the case do have to follow rule 63.

Quoting the same thing Sheryl Nome did: "We hold the same to be true under rule 63's requirement that leave of court be obtained before amended pleadings can be filed within seven days of trial or thereafter. The rule applies in instances where there is a trial on the merits of the case. It does not apply in the instance of a hearing on a plea to the jurisdiction, as such is preliminary to a trial on the merits. Therefore, we will consider appellant's amended pleadings as the 'live' pleadings in this appeal."
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That, Kosher Salt, ConSluttant and 9 others
DinkyCowSow said:
The only argument I've seen actually be made with any citations is that "rule 63 doesn't apply to hearings on jurisdiction". The TCPA hearing is not a hearing on the jurisdiction, it is a hearing on the merits of the case.

My argument is not that the TCPA is exactly the same as the standard summary judgment procedure in Texas. But, it is still a procedure that allows for the judge to make a summary judgment (i.e. a judgment without going to a full trial) based on the merits of the case. And hearings on the merits of the case do have to follow rule 63.

Quoting the same thing Sheryl Nome did: "We hold the same to be true under rule 63's requirement that leave of court be obtained before amended pleadings can be filed within seven days of trial or thereafter. The rule applies in instances where there is a trial on the merits of the case. It does not apply in the instance of a hearing on a plea to the jurisdiction, as such is preliminary to a trial on the merits. Therefore, we will consider appellant's amended pleadings as the 'live' pleadings in this appeal."
Click to expand...
TCPA is not a trial on the merits of the case. For it to be a trial on the merits, which is a specific legal term of art, the court would have to hear substantive arguments and evidence on the matter at hand (under the preponderance standard), and to render a judgement. TCPA does neither of these things: evidence and arguments are prima facie for the plaintiff, evidence is merely clear and specific, and the court does not render judgement. The court may dismiss causes of action for lack of a prima facie case, but it does not render judgement on those causes. There is no merit in the judicial sense to be tried at this point.

Nor is it summary judgement, as has been pointed out previously, as it does not consider the preponderance of evidence for all parties to the case. Even if it were summary judgement, that would then render it not a trial by the merits in any case, as summary judgement takes place before trial, when the evidence so clearly favours one party (again, under the preponderance of evidence standard, not merely prima facie) as to allow the court to render judgement without recourse to trial.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Kosher Salt, Botchy Galoop, Yuusha-sama and 6 others
DinkyCowSow said:
TCPA motions are motions for summary judgment. They are asking the judge to rule on the merits of the case before a full trial. TCPA hearings are hearings on the merits of the case. Hearings on the merits of the case do count as a trial for the purpose of rule 63.

Already walked through the reasons why, feel free to read them again.
Click to expand...
If TCPA motions are motions for Summary Judgement, why does the actual text of the law say 'Motion to Dismiss'
That text makes me think its a motion to dismiss, and not a motion for Summary Judgement.

Care to answer that question?

It might be because its a Motion to Dismiss. And not a Summary Judgement
And its really interesting, because when you try to find if Rule 63 applies to Motions hearings, or motions to dismiss, the only answer I've ever found is that no, a Motion to Strike for lack of Jurisdiction does not fall within Rule 63. While its not set in stone, I would say if one kind of motion that requires a hearing and arguments doesn't fall within rule 63, its likely no motions to dismiss do.

Now, Motions to Dismiss CAN count as an Adjucication on the Merits. Does that make the TCPA hearing a Trial on the Merits per se? No. The Summary Judgement hearing is a specific carve out in the case law, and there is no such one for the TCPA, and no such authority because the TCPA is not a motion for summary judgement, and I cannot, cannot find, anything about MTD under Rule 63.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: Botchy Galoop, Zero Day Defense and The Demon Pimp of Razgriz
Imperial Agent said:
What other judges are you comparing him to?

I have a feeling people talking about how awful Chupp is aren’t familiar with the way most judges operate.
Click to expand...
Was talking about his behaviour during the TCPA hearing, turning it into an evidentiary hearing and all. Now the thing with him talking about "healing the community", so blatantly parroting Monia, and apparently being swayed by threats send to him by Marchi. As far as I am concerned, he should focus on the case, not on healing the weeb community.

But yeah, I am aware I don't know how the other Tarrant County judges operate. I am also aware Ty didn't deliver his best performance during the TCPA hearing. I'm also quite critical of him. Just putting my thots out there.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Helium and Dumb Bitch Smoothie
Imperial Agent said:
What other judges are you comparing him to?

I have a feeling people talking about how awful Chupp is aren’t familiar with the way most judges operate.
Click to expand...
Somebody mentioned the Kimberlin v. Walker peace bond case in relation to this one a few days ago. I had never heard of it before, but the judge (Cornelius Vaughey) eventually got reamed out by the S.C. and has now become a laughing stock of internet law for telling the defendant in this case to basically shut the hell up, and to disregard a well established supreme court precedent because they are in his courtroom and it is ruled by Vaughey Law™ (I'm sure all the US lawyers here know this, I am just laying it out for folks who don't).

The exceptional thing about this is someone had the foresight to surreptitiously record this hearing, and as I was listening to it, it was exactly how I had imagined Chupp's court to sound like. Have a listen, it's only about 25 minutes, but it is truly exceptional.
soundcloud.com

Aaron Walker Peace Hearing

Court audio from Kimberlin V. Walker - Peace order - May 19th, 2012 Plaintiff: Brett Kimberlin Defendant: Aaron Walker (http://www.twitter.com/aaronworthing) Peace Order #: 0601SP019792012 Warrant
soundcloud.com soundcloud.com
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Kosher Salt, Botchy Galoop, Yuusha-sama and 6 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back