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

[Markorian]

I can't believe I found this

Why, Yes, I AM Into SLAPPing

One of my partners won an anti-SLAPP motion yesterday in Los Angeles. It wasn’t my own client, and I didn’t draft the motion, but I advised and edited, and I was very proud to be on the…

www.popehat.com

Just about every single benefit he lists of anti-slapp laws doesn't apply to this case and possibly the entire tcpa.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

If I remember correctly, the Texas appeals courts are split on whether the TCPA hearing is a trial, but the most recent ruling by the appeals court that has jurisdiction over Tarrant County was that it isn't a trial.

There's no clear authority if it is or isn't a trial

If the TCPA hearing was a trial, then Ty's trial amendment of the affadavits should have been allowed

 

[Imperial Agent]

There's no clear authority if it is or isn't a trial

If the TCPA hearing was a trial, then Ty's trial amendment of the affadavits should have been allowed

I’m a bit fuzzy at the moment, but I thought it being a trial was bad for Ty?

Because it put it within the “surprise” window (I think I recall 6 days or less before a trial is a no-go)?

 

[Sheryl Nome]

I’m a bit fuzzy at the moment, but I thought it being a trial was bad for Ty?

Because it put it within the “surprise” window (I think I recall 6 days or less before a trial is a no-go)?

if it is a trial, 2ap wasn't allowed under rule 63

but then the Trial amendment of the affadavits should have been allowed, surprise here is a nonissue and thats the only argument the defense gets, and they cannot argue that they were surprised by the remedying of the defective affadavits.

 

[Kosher Salt]

If the TCPA hearing was a trial, then Ty's trial amendment of the affadavits should have been allowed

The opposite. Rule 63 requires parties to obtain the judge's permission to amend within 7 days of a trial.

edit: oh, your argument is that the judge should have allowed it because there was no surprise? The defense certainly argued that there was surprise, so it's hard to say which way the judge would swing the gavel.

 

[Dr. Geronimo]

The opposite. Rule 63 requires parties to obtain the judge's permission to amend within 7 days of a trial.

View attachment 1009903

So if appeals considers it a trial Ty is in the shit?

 

[Sheryl Nome]

edit: oh, your argument is that the judge should have allowed it because there was no surprise? The defense certainly argued that there was surprise, so it's hard to say which way the judge would swing the gavel.

Any sane judge should be able to dismiss the argument that there was surprise, because they're the same fucking affadavits as were in the timely filed TCPA response.

So you know, exactly what Chupp failed to do

 

[DragoonSierra]

Citation needed for Ty saying he's "too busy".

The only context I've ever heard Ty talk about being busy was when they were baffled at how much time the special ed lawtwits spend on social media. That's never been a topic or excuse of Ty's to say he's "too busy" for this case.

Nick said he was busy with another case as to why Ty was not on the show not that he was too busy for Vic's case.

Dude, you've hit the nail on the head. It's not that hard to cite to Exhibits instead of Exhibit ____; it's not that hard to get affidavits notarized instead of doing it yourself in highly dubious circumstances; and it's not that hard to get materials into evidence.

This isn't to say that Ty is the worst lawyer in the world. There are lots of times and places where being a C+ lawyer is fine. It just so happens that Vic's case wasn't one of those times, and Chupp's courtroom wasn't one of those places.

Nick's show is spinning this as "Ty got pulled away by other business." If that's what happened, then cool for Ty. But whatever the reason, Vic is better off with Martinez Hsu as lead counsel.

They only got the affidavits at the last minute. Nick said on stream that he Chuck waited to the last minute to get his done . Its not easy getting affidavits like you think it is. Everyone is on thier own schedule.

if it is a trial, 2ap wasn't allowed under rule 63

but then the Trial amendment of the affadavits should have been allowed, surprise here is a nonissue and thats the only argument the defense gets, and they cannot argue that they were surprised by the remedying of the defective affadavits.

Whats a trial amendment and when and how did Ty use it during the hearing?

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Whats a trial amendment and when and how did Ty use it during the hearing?

Basically its an amendment after the rule 63 period that the defense has to object to with a showing of surprise

But that argument falls flat on its face because -what surprise could there possibly be to the affadavits-

 

[Garm]

Basically its an amendment after the rule 63 period that the defense has to object to with a showing of surprise

But that argument falls flat on its face because -what surprise could there possibly be to the affadavits-

Actually you articulated what I was thinking. If the unsworn affidavits were materially the same I don't think they can claim "It was a surprise!"

Chupp could have sat down and compared the two submissions if he was so inclined, right? The PDF's didn't get deleted off the server.
He could have looked into it himself rather than just listen to Lemoine.

 

[secondclass]

Actually you articulated what I was thinking. If the unsworn affidavits were materially the same I don't think they can claim "It was a surprise!"

Chupp could have sat down and compared the two submissions if he was so inclined, right? The PDF's didn't get deleted off the server.
He could have looked into it himself rather than just listen to Lemoine.

This was one of Ty's most egregious mistakes, in my opinion. When submitting affidavits to the court, a party can object to either the FORM of the affidavit or the SUBSTANCE of the affidavit. See e.g. Dailey v. Albertson’s, Inc., 83 S.W.3d 222, 225 (Tex.App.–El Paso 2002, no pet.)

If there is a defect in form (ie. it wasn't properly notarized), then Texas law says that the party supplying the affidavit automatically gets an opportunity to cure the defect. This is because courts don't want to throw out a case just because a notary didn't stamp a piece of paper correctly.

If there is a defect in substance (ie. the party is obviously lying, or doesn't know what they're talking about), then there is no automatic right to cure.

Clearly, a fucked-up notarization is a defect in form of the affidavit. Ty, were he an experienced litigator, would know that he has a legal right to cure that defect by just submitting the affidavit with a correct notarization.

Instead, Ty WITHDREW the affidavits altogether, and then tried to refile them with an amended petition. While the practical difference isn't huge, procedurally, this is an EPIC FUCKUP. When there is an objection to the form of an affidavit, you respond by filing an affidavit with the defect cured, not by withdrawing the affidavit, which WAIVES your right to cure. Instead of taking his automatic re-do on the affidavit, which he was legally entitled to receive, Ty tried to sneak the affidavits in an arguably late-filed amended petition.

In other words, he got caught trying to sneak in the back window when the front door was wide open and available.

 

[Much Ado About Nothing]

Basically its an amendment after the rule 63 period that the defense has to object to with a showing of surprise

But that argument falls flat on its face because -what surprise could there possibly be to the affadavits-

Speaking of 'affidavits'

Not only do I enjoy the misspelling of Michelle's name, but I also am amused that liar-pants, Faisal, affidavit had to have "corrections" so least we know there are possibly 2 versions there. Wonder what he had to correct. Did he get the year wrong maybe?

 

[TexOffender]

Speaking of 'affidavits'
View attachment 1009972
Not only do I enjoy the misspelling of Michelle's name, but I also am amused that liar-pants affidavit had to have "corrections" so least we know there are possibly 2 versions there. Wonder what he had to correct. Did he get the year wrong maybe?

Also may not be a good person to get an affidavit from if she's currently on probation and obviously cray cray.

 

[DragoonSierra]

Basically its an amendment after the rule 63 period that the defense has to object to with a showing of surprise

But that argument falls flat on its face because -what surprise could there possibly be to the affadavits-

Wouldnt they also have to object to it at the hearing and not on appeals?

which WAIVES your right to cure.

I dont think thats how that works. Maybe he didnt have to withdraw the affidavits but I think if he thought it was necessary then he might have needed to.

Speaking of 'affidavits'
View attachment 1009972
Not only do I enjoy the misspelling of Michelle's name, but I also am amused that liar-pants affidavit had to have "corrections" so least we know there are possibly 2 versions there. Wonder what he had to correct. Did he get the year wrong maybe?

Fat lot of good it did since that affidavit is full of holes and has lies about EriMin

I imagine that if appeals go through they will probably ask him about that correction in deposition.

Also may not be a good person to get an affidavit from if she's currently on probation and obviously cray cray.

probation for what?

 

[Sheryl Nome]

they did object at the hearing, but Chupp should have allowed them in, there's no real argument for surprise so he should have been able to get them in, even if Rule 63 applied, and they could only object if rule 63 applied in the first place, either way the affadavits should have gotten in and I would be staggered if the appeals court skunks on that.

 

[Much Ado About Nothing]

Also may not be a good person to get an affidavit from if she's currently on probation and obviously cray cray.

Not her, Faisal, who we already know has been in trouble with the law for falsyfing evidence.

That being said, she'd be a better choice than Lynn Hunt, and we all know they decided that she seemed legit.

 

[Imperial Agent]

Any sane judge should be able to dismiss the argument that there was surprise, because they're the same fucking affadavits as were in the timely filed TCPA response.

So you know, exactly what Chupp failed to do

It shouldn’t change the surprise factor, but worth mentioning Ty said there was one difference in the affidavits (albeit a subtract not addition).

Ty said at the hearing that in addition to removing the signatures they removed a line from Vic’s talking about him going on medication due to the defendants’ actions.

 

[AnIncredibleDerp]

It shouldn’t change the surprise factor, but worth mentioning Ty said there was one difference in the affidavits (albeit a subtract not addition).

Ty said at the hearing that in addition to removing the signatures they removed a line from Vic’s talking about him going on medication due to the defendants’ actions.

they did object at the hearing, but Chupp should have allowed them in, there's no real argument for surprise so he should have been able to get them in, even if Rule 63 applied, and they could only object if rule 63 applied in the first place, either way the affadavits should have gotten in and I would be staggered if the appeals court skunks on that.

Just pointing out Allanon's point earlier: Why does surprise matter at a TCPA hearing when the applicant should not be allowed to rebut the points made by the respondent?

 

[Apteryx Owenii]

I can't believe I found this

Why, Yes, I AM Into SLAPPing

One of my partners won an anti-SLAPP motion yesterday in Los Angeles. It wasn’t my own client, and I didn’t draft the motion, but I advised and edited, and I was very proud to be on the…

www.popehat.com

Why can't you believe it? He's self proclaimed as pro-free speech, of course he's in favor of anti-slapp laws. Nick is very much an... aberration, in this regard, and I think a lot of people are just parroting him without much reflection on how useful anti-slapp statutes can be, especially coming from a site like this. Most free speech advocates want it to be difficult for plaintiffs to bury defendants in legal fees unless they can make a early showing of merit.

I hear a bunch of explanations for what happened from different sectors:
1. Anti-slapp is bad
2. Chupp is a moron \ didn't follow the law
3. Beard fucked up royally
4. Vic's accusers are basically truthful

If 2,3 or 4 are correct then TCPA isn't the issue. I think most people have been blaming the judge for not following the law which doesn't mean it's a bad law.

 

[AnIncredibleDerp]

Why can't you believe it? He's self proclaimed as pro-free speech, of course he's in favor of anti-slapp laws. Nick is very much an... aberration, in this regard, and I think a lot of people are just parroting him without much reflection on how useful anti-slapp statutes can be, especially coming from a site like this. Most free speech advocates want it to be difficult for plaintiffs to bury defendants in legal fees unless they can make a early showing of merit.

I hear a bunch of explanations for what happened from different sectors:
1. Anti-slapp is bad
2. Chupp is a moron \ didn't follow the law
3. Beard fucked up royally
4. Vic's accusers are basically truthful

If 2,3 or 4 are correct then TCPA isn't the issue. I think most people have been blaming the judge for not following the law which doesn't mean it's a bad law.

At no point did Nick say anti-SLAPP is inherently bad, he said the TCPA throws away legitimate lawsuits.