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

[GenericReviewerDraco]

2020 is an election year. I'm not sure if that has anything to do with it.

Does that mean he's crazy enough to replace Chupp or something else?

 

[Focken Kiwi]

>We do not forgive
>We do not forget
Did we travel back in time over a decade?

Clearly.

 

[teriyakiburns]

Does that mean he's crazy enough to replace Chupp or something else?

He's a state senator.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

Does that mean he's crazy enough to replace Chupp or something else?

Chupp isn't up for reelection until 2022, IIRC.

But man, I'm hoping someone bites the bullet and runs against him.

... Hey Nick! Ever considered moving back to Texas?

 

[DragoonSierra]

Martinez Hsu, P.C. | Attorneys at Law | Attorneys at Law

Attorneys at Law

www.martinezhsu.com

Michael S Martinez
View attachment 998897

• Commercial Litigation
• Oil & Gas Law
• Contract Litigation

An Lee Hsu
View attachment 998900

• Corporate & Securities
• International & Domestic Contracts
• Regulated Asset Purchases
• NFA trusts, ITAR regulated items, ammunition manufacturing, and other licenses and regulated firearm manufacturing and purchasing transactions
• Real Estate
• Commercial Lending
• Family Law

Seems like he's finally decided to get some people with some real experience with Commercial litigation and Contract Law in addition to Beard. Seems like he's getting these guys on ready for the Appeals, where they may have more experience than Ty regarding this. Hopefully they might start to shut Lemoncunt and his bullshit down.

Edit: If anyone can help find cases these guys have worked on so we get an idea of their competency, that would be much appreciated.

I wonder if this means a wrongful termination suit is in play

Lol, of course it's fake. If it was real, Jamie would've screeched about it on Twitter for days.

Do we have any other examples of Jamies hand writing?

Its a policy argument, the point of the TCPA is to swiftly dispose of frivilous lawsuit, if a lawsuit against you is frivilous, the last thing you want to do is engage in discovery and go through unnecessary cost, because the thing that frivilous lawsuits utilize to intimidate people is the cost of litigation. Even having your lawyer be present while you're deposed is screamingly expensive.

Thus, that is why the TCPA, and other anti-slapp statutes stay discovery (to prevent costs from being inflated), and awards costs to the defendant if they win (So that the costs of the lawsuit that would be forced onto them by the plaintiff are not)

By engaging in discovery, there is an argument, and let me make a point that it is not an insubstantial one, that the defendant is arguably waiving their right to the TCPA by implicitly agreeing that the lawsuit is NOT frivolous, by engaging in discovery. Because a truly frivolous lawsuit would get a TCPA response and nothing else.

There is a real argument that the TCPA may not apply here, it would not be beyond the pale for the courts to decide that beginning the discovery process in a lawsuit waives the right to the TCPA.

Would that apply to all defendants?

Yes. Whether they'd hear it or not when it wasn't raised below is another issue, but the court at Fort Worth is disinclined to be especially concerned with the technicalities of error preservation on de novo review of a TCPA case and has recently said so.

Would the rule 11 agreement to delay tcpa filing complicate that?

Here's a sick thought. What if they're so desperate to get Slaytosch on the stand (outside of trial) because they've flipped him.

Then why couldnt he submit an affidavit? Shit they could just get him on video saying he was coerced no deposition needed.

 

[TheClappening]

I wonder if this means a wrongful termination suit is in play.

Possibly, but Mike does do appellate law, so that's most likely why he was brought on.

 

[Punished Brent]

Anyone expecting justice is high. Also that “threat” is very obviously fake, the way it mentions the second amendment is just gun-grabber signaling. They just want this to blow up into a big news story and shift the focus to “we are getting death threats from right wing people with guns they shouldn’t have because we are trying to stop a rapist”

 

[Markorian]

Anyone expecting justice is high. Also that “threat” is very obviously fake, the way it mentions the second amendment is just gun-grabber signaling. They just want this to blow up into a big news story and shift the focus to “we are getting death threats from right wing people with guns they shouldn’t have because we are trying to stop a rapist”

Wouldn't be surprised if marchi's new pr friends told her exactly what to write to try and get this to blow up.

 

[GaryGrey]

I imagine this is the template document that Lemonhead must have shared with Sam.

 

[Iron Hamster]

If I were a judge and this bullshit was heaped upon me for no reason, I'd be really fucking pissed.

 

[Spectre_06]

There is absolutely nothing in the text of the TCPA that prevents you from using it if you have previously done discovery. Sometimes you need to gather some facts before you want to make the assertion that the TCPA applies. Other times, you find out something during discovery that leads you to believe that the TCPA applies. Trying to change the law to make something like that apply would be a mess. Plaintiffs could just, before filing a lawsuit, prepare as many notices of deposition as they want, and then rush out the gate with the lawsuit and start putting out subpoenas and doing depositions immediately. Meanwhile, you are unable to gather literally any evidence for any of the positive defenses that are allowed under the TCPA for certain torts. So, the plaintiff is able to gather anything they want, you are unable to gather anything you need, and plaintiffs have unlimited freedom to impose costs on you until your motion is complete (a motion you were most likely unable to prepare for, despite the plaintiff having the opportunity to blitz out of the gate with lots of prepared paperwork).

Except that's literally not how it works. The TCPA can and is filed before discovery commences, forcing the plaintiff to rely on evidence they've already been able to glean from their own pre-filing work. That's why the burden of proof at that stage for the plaintiff is to show clear and specific evidence to move forward, not preponderance of the evidence: the TCPA specifically expects that the plaintiff will not have had a chance to get any discovery outside of what is mandated for all parties to produce via TRCP (the basic information). The intention and spirit of the law is very plain, if poorly implemented.

 

[I can't imagine]

Except that's literally not how it works. The TCPA can and is filed before discovery commences, forcing the plaintiff to rely on evidence they've already been able to glean from their own pre-filing work. That's why the burden of proof at that stage for the plaintiff is to show clear and specific evidence to move forward, not preponderance of the evidence: the TCPA specifically expects that the plaintiff will not have had a chance to get any discovery outside of what is mandated for all parties to produce via TRCP (the basic information). The intention and spirit of the law is very plain, if poorly implemented.

Out of curiosity, where in the TCPA does it say that discovery can't have begun before filing the motion to dismiss? I've seen this said in here like a dozen times in the last day, but I can't find it anywhere in there.

 

[mindlessobserver]

@mindlessobserver how does it feel to be FINALLY exposed as a lawyer from a small fim in central Minnesota?

Oh shit, when was I exposed?

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Out of curiosity, where in the TCPA does it say that discovery can't have begun before filing the motion to dismiss? I've seen this said in here like a dozen times in the last day, but I can't find it anywhere in there.

Nobody has said its in the text of the TCPA

 

[Kosher Salt]

Out of curiosity, where in the TCPA does it say that discovery can't have begun before filing the motion to dismiss? I've seen this said in here like a dozen times in the last day, but I can't find it anywhere in there.

It's nowhere in the text of the law. The argument that's been made is that it violates the spirit of the law, which is to swiftly dispose of frivolous lawsuits without forcing the defendants to go through the cost and trouble of discovery and unnecessary motion practice prior to a summary judgement to dismiss.

I don't really like the argument. I don't think a court will say "well, by participating in any discovery you burned your TCPA bridge." There could be reasons why defendants tactically choose to engage in discovery even when a lawsuit is baseless prior to filing their motion to dismiss under the TCPA, and I doubt that a court is going to yank that option away from them. They're fighting not only a lawsuit but also a very public battle, and even if the lawsuit is dismissed they will still be facing criticism on the public front. If the defendants feel like some discovery is worthwhile and necessary to gather evidence that they can use to rebuff the frivolous claims made by the plaintiff, not only in court but also in public, blocking them from pursuing that option does not really fit within the spirit of the TCPA either.

On the other hand, you could argue that their legal remedy, if they feel like the plaintiff's accusations against them are false and damaging and they want to clear their names, is to counter-sue. Then they could try to get the discovery that they're after (and all the fun of having a TCPA filed in reverse).

 

[Sheryl Nome]

If the defendants feel like some discovery is worthwhile and necessary to gather evidence that they can use to rebuff the frivolous claims made by the plaintiff, not only in court but also in public, blocking them from pursuing that option does not really fit within the spirit of the TCPA either.

This argument fails because it is not how the TCPA works, the defendants do not need to rebuff frivolous claims, they file a motion to dismiss under the TCPA and the defendants need prove nothing at that point, the burden of proof is on the Plaintiff to prove that their lawsuit IS NOT frivilous.

The plaintiff is the one who needs to make a showing, not the defendants. By the defendants engaging in discovery to gather information and providing information, AND THEREFORE ENGAGING IN WHAT THE TCPA AIMS TO PREVENT, the argument stems from there that they have by implication waived their right to file a TCPA, this is an argument. Does that mean the court will accept that or implement that? No. But is it beyond the pale? Absolutely not.

 

[Kosher Salt]

This argument fails because it is not how the TCPA works, the defendants do not need to rebuff frivolous claims, they file a motion to dismiss under the TCPA and the defendants need prove nothing at that point, the burden of proof is on the Plaintiff to prove that their lawsuit IS NOT frivilous.

The plaintiff is the one who needs to make a showing, not the defendants. By the defendants engaging in discovery to gather information and providing information, AND THEREFORE ENGAGING IN WHAT THE TCPA AIMS TO PREVENT, the argument stems from there that they have by implication waived their right to file a TCPA, this is an argument. Does that mean the court will accept that or implement that? No. But is it beyond the pale? Absolutely not.

The TCPA can only handle one side of the battle, though... what happens in the courtroom. Their legal counsel should be concerned with fighting the battle on both fronts: in court and in public. It wouldn't be very consistent with the purpose of the TCPA to say "we'll make it easy for you to dismiss this lawsuit, but we're going to hinder you from fighting these same frivolous claims in public."

There's an argument to be made on both sides. Removing the defendants' ability to file a motion to dismiss under the TCPA would be highly prejudicial toward them, however. I don't think a court is going to do it.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

The TCPA can only handle one side of the battle, though... what happens in the courtroom. Their legal counsel should be concerned with fighting the battle on both fronts: in court and in public. It wouldn't be very consistent with the purpose of the TCPA to say "we'll make it easy for you to dismiss this lawsuit, but we're going to hinder you from fighting these same frivolous claims in public."

There's an argument to be made on both sides. Removing the defendants' ability to file a motion to dismiss under the TCPA would be highly prejudicial toward them, however. I don't think a court is going to do it.

If they want to fight frivilous claims 'in public'(which i'm not even sure what that means), they should countersue, thats the remedy if they've been legally harmed. the TCPA's purpose isn't to help their PR, its to get them out of a lawsuit as quickly & cheaply as possible. that would otherwise crush them with costs.

The defendant deliberately taking on costs to pass them onto the plaintiff is actually prejudicial to plaintiffs.

 

[Much Ado About Nothing]

Oh shit, when was I exposed?

Lemwah got you bro! He got you! The proof is the fact that your opinion is similar to Nick! 100% truth. He linked to your main-post. It's done, you lost the case Nick!!

 

[Red Wizard]

The TCPA can only handle one side of the battle, though... what happens in the courtroom. Their legal counsel should be concerned with fighting the battle on both fronts: in court and in public. It wouldn't be very consistent with the purpose of the TCPA to say "we'll make it easy for you to dismiss this lawsuit, but we're going to hinder you from fighting these same frivolous claims in public."

There's an argument to be made on both sides. Removing the defendants' ability to file a motion to dismiss under the TCPA would be highly prejudicial toward them, however. I don't think a court is going to do it.

The TCPA's intent is already EXTREMELY prejudiced against the plaintiff. The plaintiff no longer gets to conduct discovery (so cannot acquire any additional information), if the plaintiff loses, the case is dismissed with prejudice (so it cannot be brought again, even if information comes to light later), AND has to reimburse the defendants for court costs. The defendant needs no evidence, and no arguments to bring a TCPA claim, and the plainitff has to defeat it. There is literally no reason that the defendant needs discovery for a TCPA claim.

There's logically no reason for discovery for a defamation claim from the defendant anyway...if they feel they've been unfairly damaged by the plaintiff's lawsuit, they should countersue and request discovery there. PR has no meaning here.

EDIT: Just a clarification here - there's likely reason for discovery at some point in a defendant's case. But for the purposes of TCPA, there is none. The TCPA assumes that every.single.case is frivolous, and makes the plaintiff prove it's not.