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

[Markorian]

Personally, and this is probably just me, i think he should feel less. Ty Beard should do that appeal Pro Bono, because it was HIS fuckups that derailed things. I think its the one thing that every party in this thread can agree to, Beard. Fucked. Up. And it should not be on Mignona or the GoFundMe to shoulder the burden of that.

Edit: To clarify, since I never said it, i personally have had consistently middling feelings on the case. I doubted people claiming it was as much a slam dunk as they claimed, but also doubted it was as weak as the anti-vic side claimed. I am mostly here to laugh at the absurd parties involved. So when I said Beard derailed it, I don't say that from a pro-vic viewpoint, but from the viewpoint of "If you had a case, you fucked it".

While I agree that Ty fucked up, I disagree that him fucking up had any real impact on this case. Chupp wanted to enjoy his "paid retirement" as a judge and wanted to get rid of a difficult case that would take a lot of time, evidence be damned, law be damned, justice be damned. Ty fucking up provided a convenient excuse for him to write down, but he would have done the same shit either way.

 

[Gehenna]

It would have been appealed either way. Things did not get made worse. Things are as they are.

Not... necessarily. Now Beard has to argue that the amended petition should be allowed. If it isn't, then several core premises to the complaint are severely undermined. Or, in other words, he made the appeals process more difficult for absolutely no material gain.

Not unwinnable, mind you. Just more thorny. So yes, it did make things worse.

 

[Red Wizard]

Great, him deciding that after the fact is incredibly unfair to the hearing, and may have been abuse of discretion.

This is actually very interesting. Judge specifically states on the record that the affidavits would be considered, and heard arguments involving them. He then does an about face and rejects the second amended response AND accepts the withdrawal of the affidavits after the fact. I wonder if this constitutes some form of abuse from the bench, allowing a Plaintiff to use/reference evidence in a very important hearing, and then striking it all after the fact with inconsistent logic?

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Not... necessarily. Now Beard has to argue that the amended petition should be allowed. If it isn't, then several core premises to the complaint are severely undermined. Or, in other words, he made the appeals process more difficult for absolutely no material gain.

Not unwinnable, mind you. Just more thorny. So yes, it did make things worse.

I mean there's no caselaw that suggests their preclusion was allowable and it constitutes a clear error in my view but if thats making things 'harder' then whatever

 

[Gehenna]

This is actually very interesting. Judge specifically states on the record that the affidavits would be considered, and heard arguments involving them. He then does an about face and rejects the second amended response AND accepts the withdrawal of the affidavits after the fact. I wonder if this constitutes some form of abuse from the bench, allowing a Plaintiff to use/reference evidence in a very important hearing, and then striking it all after the fact with inconsistent logic?

That HAS to be an appeal point on its own. Add in, Chupp completely failed to rule on the motions to strike.

 

[Son of Sparda 84]

Whats Dismissed with Prejudice?

 

[Gehenna]

I mean there's no caselaw that suggests their preclusion was allowable and it constitutes a clear error in my view but if thats making things 'harder' then whatever

There is no precedent for it being a sure thing. Case law suggests is not precedent declares. he must now make that suggestion into an arguement that the appeals court accepts.

Whats Dismissed with Prejudice?

The suit cannot be brought up again, if it fails in appeals.

 

[Long-time Lurker]

View attachment 959170
Whats Dismissed with Prejudice?

You cannot bring the case again.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

There is no precedent for it being a sure thing. Case law suggests is not precedent declares. he must now make that suggestion into an arguement that the appeals court accepts.

I think its a pretty easy argument. Rule 63 precluding the amendment of the petition only applies to Trials and Summary Judgements, which are evidentiary hearings, the TCPAhearing is neither.

 

[Red Wizard]

Not... necessarily. Now Beard has to argue that the amended petition should be allowed. If it isn't, then several core premises to the complaint are severely undermined. Or, in other words, he made the appeals process more difficult for absolutely no material gain.

Not unwinnable, mind you. Just more thorny. So yes, it did make things worse.

Ty could aruge a couple points here:
1) The second amended petition breaks no rules and should be allowed
2) The judge violated his own deadline by allowing the withdrawal but not the resubmission, so both should be allowed, since they place no burden on the defence
3) The judge violated his own deadline and should not have allowed either, giving him access to the affidavits in the first petition.

EDIT: There would have to be documented reasoning for the judge to have allowed the withdrawal of evidence, but not the amended petition with the resubmission. His reasoning in the order is that it would "violate the spirit of the TCPA", which is not case law or logic or anything other than "because i said so"

 

[Gehenna]

I think its a pretty easy argument. Rule 63 precluding the amendment of the petition only applies to Trials and Summary Judgements, the TCPA is neither.

That is the letter, yes. But the spirit and purpose of it being put into place was to stop the bickering parties from jumping eachother. The Amended petition did NOT break the letter, but it definitely broke the spirit.

You could thus argue it either way.

Ty could aruge a couple points here:
1) The second amended petition breaks no rules and should be allowed
2) The judge violated his own deadline by allowing the withdrawal but not the resubmission, so both should be allowed, since they place no burden on the defence
3) The judge violated his own deadline and should not have allowed either, giving him access to the affidavits in the first petition.

Yes, all of those are arguable. But, they ALL could have been avoided had he not tried to play games with the affidavits. He has made the process more difficult by palcing roadblocks in his own path. Not insurmountable ones, but they are entirely ones of his creation.

 

[Hoss]

I was not using the word consider in any way a judge would. I was using it to say that he outright states neither the affidavits nor unsworn declartions were accepted.

Meaning the Judge wouldn't have considered anything in the affirmative. It WASN'T because it was "late". It was because it was treated as a summary judgement....which it wasn't.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

That is the letter, yes. But the spirit and purpose of it being put into place was to stop the bickering parties from jumping eachother. The Amended petition did NOT break the letter, but it definitely broke the spirit.

You could thus argue it either way

No you can't. Especially not in Texas.
Whining about the 'spirit of the law' is a surefire way to lose the argument.

 

[Long-time Lurker]

Oh, did you notice that Ron Toye was an Independent Contractor of Funimation? Seriously Judge Chupp, you are the best.

 

[Hoss]

Oh, did you notice that Ron Toye was an Independent Contractor of Funimation? Seriously Judge Chupp, you are the best.

I believe he helped with the Fruits Basket dub, which makes me fucking sick

 

[Gehenna]

No you can't. Especially not in Texas.
Whining about the 'spirit of the law' is a surefire way to lose the argument.

Making decisions when the two come into conflict is literally the job of a Judge. That is a core, fundamental element of the judicial system.

 

[Red Wizard]

Yes, all of those are arguable. But, they ALL could have been avoided had he not tried to play games with the affidavits. He has made the process more difficult by palcing roadblocks in his own path. Not insurmountable ones, but they are entirely ones of his creation.

BHBH got caught playing the same games that the defense was playing. That's why they were notorized last minute, because it looks dishonest to hold those til the last minute. Ty, don't you remember the playground rules? The second swing is the one that gets caught.

Oh, did you notice that Ron Toye was an Independent Contractor of Funimation? Seriously Judge Chupp, you are the best.

LMAO. Arbitrary, non-cited ruling on the employment status of individuals during a motion hearing? That's some funny stuff there.

 

[Son of Sparda 84]

You cannot bring the case again.

So no appeal

 

[Hoss]

Making decisions when the two come into conflict is literally the job of a Judge. That is a core, fundamental element of the judicial system.

Yes and the Judge is to follow the Law. That is the core, fundamental element of the Executive. Either he didn't understand the TCPA or blatantly ignored it.

 

[General Relativity QM]

Whelp, that's a thing that just happened. I'm disappointed that Chupp didn't detail the reasons he ruled as he did, but why write out a bunch of shit if the appeals court is going to de novo review everything regardless of how he ruled. Honestly, this punt is probably the best way for everyone to get their appeal.

Some of the spergs upset with Chupp need to relax. This isn't even unexpected and doesn't change anything. This was going to the appeals court no matter what.

Some of the spergs celebrating need to calm down too. We're still on the way to appeals just as before. Nothing changed other than the emotional states of the spergs watching this.

However, I will gladly laugh at you as you continue to react emotionally to something before the conclusion.