Anime News Network (ANN), Christopher Macdonald & Co. - "Unbiased" Reporting on All Things Anime Related By Snobbish Quebec-Based Web Company. Acquired by Kadokawa.

I Love Beef said:
So, who wants to go look for gold in this septic tank?

NEWS: Vic Mignogna's Civil Case Against Funimation, Voice Actress Monica Rial, Ron Toye Dismissed [1/12] - Forum - Anime News Network:AU

www.animenewsnetwork.com www.animenewsnetwork.com
Click to expand...

Screw it I'll do it, but I make no promises that I'll stay in for long. Wish me luck.

Edit : Oh ffs. I thought this was an article not the forum. Goddang it.

Some choice big brain takes

I'm hearing upwards of half a million he's gonna owe in just legal fees...
I'm just glad that everyone will now have to accept this comprehensive dunking and not shit up the internet with baseless conspiracy theories and harassment campaigns anymore

I'm surprised the judge didn't say that now they could arrest him for his lewd acts and all. That'll be the next headline.
 
Last edited:
verissimus said:
Screw it I'll do it, but I make no promises that I'll stay in for long. Wish me luck.

Edit : Oh ffs. I thought this was an article not the forum. Goddang it.

Some choice big brain takes

I'm hearing upwards of half a million he's gonna owe in just legal fees...
I'm just glad that everyone will now have to accept this comprehensive dunking and not shit up the internet with baseless conspiracy theories and harassment campaigns anymore
I'm surprised the judge didn't say that now they could arrest him for his lewd acts and all. That'll be the next headline.
Click to expand...


As retarded as ISWVs lowest common denominator is, they got nothing on KV. And hell, they got a win.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: GenericReviewerDraco and theworstkindofeurofag
EF_jcBZWwAAqjcT.png


I don't if this is late
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
  • Winner
Reactions: The Decimator, GenericReviewerDraco, I Love Beef and 2 others
  • Islamic Content
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
Reactions: The Decimator, theworstkindofeurofag, Dean Pentel and 4 others
  • Agree
Reactions: REGENDarySumanai, Kill all whales, theworstkindofeurofag and 1 other person
General Gunther said:
View attachment 998691

View attachment 998693

This entire article:
https://archive.ph/6c3o0

The brain dead forum posters at ANN:
https://archive.ph/OCh0Q
Click to expand...
This raises a question that I had before re: Anti-SLAPP. It seems like the whole thing works on the basis that everyone is approaching it rationally and with explicit liquid assets. Pretend for a moment that Vic actually has 0 dollars to his name outside the GFM, and just for fun assume for a moment that Ty got ticked off enough to take the case pro-bono. It seems there is literally no mechanism to stop Vic from bringing suit ad inifintum at that point. The way Anti-SLAPP works is you prevent someone from wasting someone else's time and money by giving them a large monetary fine. We've already established that trying to recover a legal award against someone with no money is all but impossible, so at that point what's to stop him from running it up continuously? Ty can't do it on his own because then he is subject to the fine, but as legal counsel he is just following the wishes of his client. (this is entirely hypothetical, I realize in reality at some point the judge would try to levy fines on the lawyer for doing it, but is there really grounds for that?)

I'm just wondering, because this seems completely like the kind of situation that would arise once you put someone in a position with nothing left to lose. (Arguably, from Ty's perspective, you don't even need to do a lot of additional work, just refile the same crap over and over until the defense lawyers get sick of not getting paid)
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: GenericReviewerDraco
A case would have to be dismissed without prejudice to be capable of being refiled. Or withdrawn. This got ridden to the end of the line -barring appeals extending the track- so it was dismissed with prejudice, so it cannot be legitimately refilled.

A lawyer that files and threatens junk lawsuits to harass people can be sanctioned by the courts and disciplined by the state bar, including being disbarred. Especially if you do it knowingly, which if you were the lawyer on the case when it was dismissed with prejudice on the first go 'round YOU KNOW. No serious, sane lawyer wants to have this happen and lose their meal ticket. And with litigants filing pro se there are rarely employed methods that the courts can use to stop you from abusing the system, by getting the plaintiff recognized as a "vexatious litigant", and it's a somewhat out-of-the-ordinary procedure. Courts don't like to do it, because on its face it fucks with the Constitutional rights people have to petition, but it does happen.

There certainly are people who abuse the court to harass and attack people. Hell, there are certainly cows on this site who are guilty of doing it or treading dangeresquely close, but BHBH and Vic certainly haven't, nor should they. And they won't, because that would be stupid. Most vexatious litigants only thrive because they pick on small potatoes, like the sort of snakes who abuse the ADA to try to extort money out of minority-owned small businesses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GenericReviewerDraco and Kill all whales
I am not a lawyer, so I accept that my interpretation is probably incorrect and even if not, an actual experienced litigant can probably make things work the way they want. That said, we're not talking a criminal case, we're talking a civil dispute, as such, dismissing the claim before trial doesn't really declare a true judgement of the claim, it removes the claim due to the determination that there was not sufficient grounds for a case. The whole point of awarding damages is to dissuade you from pursuing this course of action (since attorneys fees in and of themselves may not be considered a significant burden for the plaintiff). My suggestion to refile the exact same case was mostly facetious if the plaintiff's counsel was exceptionally lazy. What I would actually expect is the second go round (if not sooner) the defense would file countersuit and that is what would get you locked down and out, but the base statute itself doesn't seem like it can really stop you if you're hellbent on doing it. Or, to go that step further, if you're a licensed attorney you can just do it yourself. Arguably, you don't even need that if you're arguing on your own behalf, since as far as I know there's no legal requirement that you must use a lawyer. (Best case in this insane scenario is you eventually win but get nothing in terms of awarded judgement, but just saying)

Also, unfortunately for Vic, it's too late for his case, but Gov. Abbot (of Texas) just this past summer signed into law a bill putting significant limits on the Anti-SLAPP statues.
 
xyz741 said:
That said, we're not talking a criminal case, we're talking a civil dispute, as such, dismissing the claim before trial doesn't really declare a true judgement of the claim, it removes the claim due to the determination that there was not sufficient grounds for a case.
Click to expand...

It's a decision on the merits that the claim was frivolous. It can't be brought again, as it has been decided on the merits. That's a final judgment and it's with prejudice.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: theworstkindofeurofag, Kill all whales and P5Fever
AnOminous said:
It's a decision on the merits that the claim was frivolous. It can't be brought again, as it has been decided on the merits. That's a final judgment and it's with prejudice.
Click to expand...
How common is it for a judge to dismiss a lawsuit with prejudice? Heard KV say that it's uncommon and means the judge thought the lawsuit was ridiculously frivolous, but also heard ISWV claim that it's very common and happens all the time, basically that it has nothing to do with the case.
 
theworstkindofeurofag said:
How common is it for a judge to dismiss a lawsuit with prejudice? Heard KV say that it's uncommon and means the judge thought the lawsuit was ridiculously frivolous, but also heard ISWV claim that it's very common and happens all the time, basically that it has nothing to do with the case.
Click to expand...
It depends. Both are relatively common, but in different situations.

Dismissal without prejudice can occur in situations like if the plaintiff fails to serve the defendant in time (they can re-file the suit if they want to try again), or when the parties settle (the plaintiff can re-file the suit if the other party breaks its settlement agreement). It means that the suit was dismissed on reasons unrelated to its merit.

Dismissal with prejudice means that the suit is without merit and it cannot be re-filed, nor can the plaintiff cite the same facts as the basis for a new claim. He would need to cite an entirely different set of facts to bring another lawsuit.

Make no mistake, Chupp ruled that Vic's case was frivolous when he dismissed it with prejudice, and KV is rightly going to trot this around for a victory lap. He didn't give much argument for why he ruled that way, but he did it. Vic can appeal that decision, and (assuming Beard can get his act together and file everything properly), the appeals court may decide that Chupp applied the law improperly and overrule him. Or it may agree with Chupp. We'll have to wait and find out.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: theworstkindofeurofag
Vic's current claim (as it stands before appeal) was dismissed with prejudice, but seeing as all of the defendants (minus Funimation) haven't shut their yaps, couldn't he file a new suit about new yammerings? Yes, I expect the result would be the same, but it'd be the same as taking someone to court for stealing a second time, regardless of how a previous theft case might have gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back