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

Felonious Monk said:
Extremely, extremely common. This is why lawyers are such sticklers for rules of civil procedure and evidence.

Also, the Court of Appeals will consider the TCPA de novo, they won't consider the decision to exclude the 2AP de novo. They will review for abuse of discretion, which is a substantially more deferential standard.
Click to expand...

But Chupp didn't throw out the 2AP. He refused to allow Ty to plead his case regarding it and said he would look at it and do what he felt like later. He never disallowed it in the record. He simply failed to consider it. It's one of his more major reversible errors.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Ken Jennings, ConSluttant and 5 others
RodgerDodger said:
But Chupp didn't throw out the 2AP. He refused to allow Ty to plead his case regarding it and said he would look at it and do what he felt like later. He never disallowed it in the record. He simply failed to consider it. It's one of his more major reversible errors.
Click to expand...
And that's why Lemongrope is so desperate to have it struck, at the same time as he's doing everything he can to try and discredit key exhibits attached to it.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, RemoveKebab, Ken Jennings and 5 others
Oh man who forgot to wrangle their tards? Seems like a few crayon eaters got loose again and decided to show up here.

Next time I'm calling Animal Control because the obsession with kissing the assholes of these these whale and orangutan looking lying thots is definitely bestiality.
 
  • Agree
  • Horrifying
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Allanon, JohnDoe, EmuWarsVeteran and 5 others
FGO-Professor-P2PBTW said:
The only way that TI gets dismissed is if the second amended petition gets dropped, and the only way that happens is because of technicalities. How common is it for things to be dropped because of mere technicalities, considering how rigid yet flexible the law seems to be?
Click to expand...

Ron's texts alone should have been enough to get TI past TCPA.... And probably defamation. He spread lies about him facing criminal trial and in deposition stated he got it from PULL.

It is literally TEXTS OF RON COMMITTING TI. It is such slam dunk evidence, it is in the same tier as having a guy with his face visible on camera, going "I, BOB BOBERTON AM ROBBING THIS STORE. GIVE ME YOUR THINGS SO I MAY USE THEM TO BUY CRACK" and the judge ignoring this clip entirely.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, 774, Yuusha-sama and 13 others
RodgerDodger said:
But Chupp didn't throw out the 2AP. He refused to allow Ty to plead his case regarding it and said he would look at it and do what he felt like later. He never disallowed it in the record. He simply failed to consider it. It's one of his more major reversible errors.
Click to expand...

That's just not how the procedure works. Beard submitted the 2AP, they moved to strike it, he argued at hearing that it shouldn't be struck. The fact that Chupp took the matter under advisement didn't deprive Beard of an opportunity to argue the issue. He already argued it at hearing.

That wasn't even his only chance. He had several options, procedurally. He could have responded to the motion to strike in writing before the hearing, just as the defendants responded to his motion to strike their late filings. He could have submitted a bench brief on the 2AP issue at the hearing (Volney did this). He could have sent a letter to the court afterwards laying out a better case for why the 2AP should be admitted based on the arguments that were raised in the hearing (a common tactic when the other side blindsides you with cases you haven't heard before/not in their brief at the hearing.) If he was worried about time and felt the issue needed more briefing he could have asked the court to hold the issue until he has time to brief it for the court. All of these are procedurally permissible methods litigators use to deal with situations like the this.

He didn't do any of those things. He argued it orally, badly, and then did nothing else.

The court doesn't give you a second chance just because you spent your first one on a lazy hack job. Beard was on notice that he needed to argue the 2AP was admissible because the defendants moved to exclude it and argued it at hearing. Putting the matter under advisement meant that Beard couldn't rely on it being in and should have acted accordingly. He blew it, big time.

Now, maybe the Fort Worth Court of Appeals reverses. The issue of whether an amended petition is proper in the week before a TCPA hearing has not been ruled on by any Court of Appeals I'm aware of, though I am aware of at least one case that briefed the issue before being settling out (preventing the court from ruling.) But even if the CoA reverses, it won't be because Chupp didn't give him a second opportunity to argue the issue before he ruled on it. There is no rule or procedure that Chupp violated by ruling when he did or how he did.

The underlying law being interpreted is up for debate, but the procedure was followed. Beard botched it royally.
 
  • Disagree
  • Dumb
  • Like
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That, N1bbaN3rd, Yuusha-sama and 9 others
Ah it makes sense.
1573076425396.png
 
  • Horrifying
  • Winner
  • Feels
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Yuusha-sama, RodgerDodger and 9 others
Felonious Monk said:
What did you think Beard was doing in the first, like, 25 pages of the transcript? When the judge kept turning to him and asking him to respond to that defendant's arguments?

He argued it. He did so badly.
Click to expand...
Did I say he didn't argue it? The badly part is opinion I don't know what you want here

Do you have brain damage?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Ken Jennings, Allanon and EmuWarsVeteran
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back