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

[AnOminous]

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.

It wasn't even an amendment. The affidavits themselves were materially identical to evidence already submitted that was only re-submitted to address technical deficiencies in how they were filed.

 

[AnIncredibleDerp]

It wasn't even an amendment. The affidavits themselves were materially identical to evidence already submitted that was only re-submitted to address technical deficiencies in how they were filed.

Aren't judges always taught to avoid punishing the client for the errors of the attorney? Especially when it's one of form and not of function?

 

[AnOminous]

Aren't judges always taught to avoid punishing the client for the errors of the attorney? Especially when it's one of form and not of function?

If the attorney fails to present the client's case and get evidence in record, the court can't just make up evidence to fill in the gaps. If your attorney fucks up your case, that's between you and the attorney. It isn't "punishment" if your case didn't have evidence in the record to support it, whether that's your fault or your attorney's.

 

[DragoonSierra]

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.

Its also a constitutional right to petition the court. Anti-SLAAP laws depending on how they are written and applied can create a conflict between those two rights. It tries to solve a problem without addressing the root of the issue: that court costs are fucking expensive.

 

[AnIncredibleDerp]

If the attorney fails to present the client's case and get evidence in record, the court can't just make up evidence to fill in the gaps. If your attorney fucks up your case, that's between you and the attorney. It isn't "punishment" if your case didn't have evidence in the record to support it, whether that's your fault or your attorney's.

I'm talking about situations like the one here.

 

[10SorrowfulObject]

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.

TBH even C grade lawyers can fill in the blanks. Leaving aside the merits of this case and how good you'd need to be to win it, leaving blanks empty is just terrible work. If the lawyer can't produce a polished document with 4-6 weeks to work on it, they shouldn't be a lawyer. That's just failing as a professional.

And "Ty got pulled away by other business" is not an excuse. His job is to meet the deadlines. If he can't manage his time effectively than he is failing at his job. If there was an unexpected crisis (like his mother died) that'd be one thing. But "oh, other work came up so I couldn't fill in the blanks" is NOT an excuse.

 

[Apteryx Owenii]

Its also a constitutional right to petition the court. Anti-SLAAP laws depending on how they are written and applied can create a conflict between those two rights. It tries to solve a problem without addressing the root of the issue: that court costs are fucking expensive.

The court costs are one thing but I don't think there's a solution for the cost of lawyers in a civil case.

I don't see a conflict in TCPA as written (applied- potentially different story). The only difference is that, because the case involves speech, Vic was supposed to make a showing of clear and specific evidence that he had a prima facie case earlier than normal in a case not involving (potentially) free speech. This is a pretty low bar (especially since questions of fact are supposed to be viewed in his favor) and someone who can't reach it shouldn't be able to drag defendants into debt via the discovery process and litigation up to the point when a dismissal would be granted normally in order to shut them up. It's not like any of this was a surprise, everyone and their mother knew that there would be a TCPA motion.

But, as it's applied... sure, some judge can hold a circus of a hearing and ignore the statute or standards if he wants. Or an attorney can screw up. But all that can happen regardless of TCPA\anti-slapp. I don't see how it can really be blamed on the law. Unfortunately appeals courts exist for a reason.

 

[AnOminous]

I'm talking about situations like the one here.

If the case is thrown out because the declarations weren't in evidence, and if they weren't properly in evidence because the submission of the affidavits was a legal nullity, because the jurat on the notary was blatantly false, and the declarations themselves were untimely, then they weren't in evidence and couldn't be used.

Not using evidence that isn't in the record isn't "punishment," it's what a court has to do.

 

[Garm]

The court costs are one thing but I don't think there's a solution for the cost of lawyers in a civil case.

I don't see a conflict in TCPA as written (applied- potentially different story). The only difference is that, because the case involves speech, Vic was supposed to make a showing of clear and specific evidence that he had a prima facie case earlier than normal in a case not involving (potentially) free speech. This is a pretty low bar (especially since questions of fact are supposed to be viewed in his favor) and someone who can't reach it shouldn't be able to drag defendants into debt via the discovery process and litigation up to the point when a dismissal would be granted normally in order to shut them up. It's not like any of this was a surprise, everyone and their mother knew that there would be a TCPA motion.

But, as it's applied... sure, some judge can hold a circus of a hearing and ignore the statute or standards if he wants. Or an attorney can screw up. But all that can happen regardless of TCPA\anti-slapp. I don't see how it can really be blamed on the law. Unfortunately appeals courts exist for a reason.

As you said it seems like the idea behind the TCPA is a noble one, just poorly executed.

As emuwarsveteran pointed out somewhere, California has a good anti-SLAPP law, but it is supported with other laws.

It looks like the TCPA in particular was written by legislature who then told the courts "figure out the mechanics of this."

As to whether it a good law, that depends on if it accomplished its goals and whether it accomplished that goal in a way that was intended. If the goal was to relieve the strain of an overburdened court system, it seems to have exacerbated things.

Right now it seems the TCPA turned trial judges into bureaucrats since TCPA's always get appealed no matter who loses. If it just shifted all the burden from the trial court to the appeals court the TCPA doesn't work.

Then again, maybe it did. Some statistician should probably look into this.

 

[Boss Bass]

TBH even C grade lawyers can fill in the blanks. Leaving aside the merits of this case and how good you'd need to be to win it, leaving blanks empty is just terrible work. If the lawyer can't produce a polished document with 4-6 weeks to work on it, they shouldn't be a lawyer. That's just failing as a professional.

And "Ty got pulled away by other business" is not an excuse. His job is to meet the deadlines. If he can't manage his time effectively than he is failing at his job. If there was an unexpected crisis (like his mother died) that'd be one thing. But "oh, other work came up so I couldn't fill in the blanks" is NOT an excuse.

As someone who bills about what Ty does - My clients would cunt punt me into the fucking sun if I fucked up the little stuff.

 

[teriyakiburns]

And "Ty got pulled away by other business" is not an excuse.

Except that isn't the explanation and never has been. Nick pretty much confirmed it, but there was a lot of last-minute work done on the filing - as in work done on ther day it was filed - because certain elements only came together right then. I'm still sticking by my theory that they made a lot of late changes after Hsu came on to the case, but it's also clear that they were scrambling to get Huber's affidavit included at the very last moment and had to re-arrange evidence to align with it, all of which led to a rushed, and consequently sloppy filing.

It's easy to sit here and criticise (and necessary, I won't pretend otherwise), but a little bit of empathy goes a long way in situations like this, and anyone who hasn't been on the wrong end of a deadline, waiting for vital documentation or information right up the wire, likely can't fully appreciate what it's like to be working in these conditions.

 

[Markorian]

The court costs are one thing but I don't think there's a solution for the cost of lawyers in a civil case.

I don't see a conflict in TCPA as written (applied- potentially different story). The only difference is that, because the case involves speech, Vic was supposed to make a showing of clear and specific evidence that he had a prima facie case earlier than normal in a case not involving (potentially) free speech. This is a pretty low bar (especially since questions of fact are supposed to be viewed in his favor) and someone who can't reach it shouldn't be able to drag defendants into debt via the discovery process and litigation up to the point when a dismissal would be granted normally in order to shut them up. It's not like any of this was a surprise, everyone and their mother knew that there would be a TCPA motion.

But, as it's applied... sure, some judge can hold a circus of a hearing and ignore the statute or standards if he wants. Or an attorney can screw up. But all that can happen regardless of TCPA\anti-slapp. I don't see how it can really be blamed on the law. Unfortunately appeals courts exist for a reason.

The TCPA has 2 explicit purposes.
Prevent the use of exorbitant legal costs in order to suppress someone's free speech.
To expedite such cases.
Not only has the TCPA utterly failed to do either of them, but it has facilitated making it extremely easy for the defendants to do the exact opposite.

 

[AnIncredibleDerp]

If the case is thrown out because the declarations weren't in evidence, and if they weren't properly in evidence because the submission of the affidavits was a legal nullity, because the jurat on the notary was blatantly false, and the declarations themselves were untimely, then they weren't in evidence and couldn't be used.

Not using evidence that isn't in the record isn't "punishment," it's what a court has to do.

I think there is plenty of evidence even without the affidavits to keep pretty much all the charges, and every time I look over it, I remember more evidence that should make prima facie rock solid.

For instance: The supposed hardest to prove is Jamie. Well, we have Vic's deposition where he does not, in fact, say that he did what Jamie says he did (despite what KV says he said)- so the affidavit is unnecessary- as well as a video of Jamie initiating a pretend makeout session with Vic after the supposed incident happened, which should be more than enough prima facie evidence of actual malice , i.e. that she does not believe the story of her supposed sexual abuse as well as knowing of his sexual abuse of others.

It would probably be smart to comb through the depositions, it's likely that the necessary statements are there. For instance, Ron saying that he got the information of Vic being about to be criminally prosecuted from PULL, which would be analogous to the Saint Amant example of "repeating what you hear in an anonymous phonecall" as a possible example of a fact proving actual malice. PULL being an anonymous message board it is much the same as an anonymous phonecall.

 

[AnOminous]

It's easy to sit here and criticise (and necessary, I won't pretend otherwise), but a little bit of empathy goes a long way in situations like this, and anyone who hasn't been on the wrong end of a deadline, waiting for vital documentation or information right up the wire, likely can't fully appreciate what it's like to be working in these conditions.

You could say the same about any high stakes fuckup including fucking up heart surgery. Empathy won't get you out of prison or a coffin.

 

[Hoss]

The TCPA has 2 explicit purposes.
Prevent the use of exorbitant legal costs in order to suppress someone's free speech.
To expedite such cases.
Not only has the TCPA utterly failed to do either of them, but it has facilitated making it extremely easy for the defendants to do the exact opposite.

Makes you think why the 7th Amendment even exists in the first place....oh wait.

 

[secondclass]

You could say the same about any high stakes fuckup including fucking up heart surgery. Empathy won't get you out of prison or a coffin.

Especially true in cases where someone is advertised as an expert in the field and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to not fuck things up.

 

[Elric of Melnibone]

Here is a question that might have been asked before but I have not seen it if it has. If the TCPA is about preventing ones free speech from being violated, and the only part of this law suit that has to specifically do with "speech" is the defamation part, then why is the TCPA able to dismiss all other parts, for instance the TI claims, because those claims have more to do with the facts of the matter rather than the speech involved. To simplify, in TI its more important to show the fact that it happened rather than how it was said, at least the way I have it in my head. If I had to put a bet on the table from a laymans perspective it would be because the suit is all or nothing bundled together, but there are known exceptions to this, like how if only parts of it are dismissed, the other parts are allowed to continue on.

 

[Apteryx Owenii]

The TCPA has 2 explicit purposes.
Prevent the use of exorbitant legal costs in order to suppress someone's free speech.
To expedite such cases.
Not only has the TCPA utterly failed to do either of them, but it has facilitated making it extremely easy for the defendants to do the exact opposite.

Based on this case or many? Because it's impossible to talk about TCPA in this case removed from the other elements, like the judge. Every law is bad if you base your opinion of it on a poor decision.

But the defendants are not suppressing vic's free speech. He could have had all the speech he wanted. He could have gotten on twitter and said they were lying rats and responded in kind to them. Instead of doing that he decided to sue them. There's nothing wrong with that if they are defaming him or comitting TI, but let's not somehow swallow this narrative where he's a victim of the legal system. No. He is the plaintiff here. This is the game he chose to play with the lawyers he chose to play it.

The question is whether everyone, including the judge, is playing by the rules. The appeals court will have the word on that.

 

[Urbanmech]

You could say the same about any high stakes fuckup including fucking up heart surgery. Empathy won't get you out of prison or a coffin.

Yea when I found out about the "Raidr 21 Crash" I really didn't think about the 6 people that died but if I worked on the jet and if I worked on anything that could cause it to crash over the course of my entire career. Didn't help the Air Force was all about fucking people over for little things all in the name of "Force shaping" at the time so was more focused on if I had worked on anything how bad would the AF screw me over.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

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.

Well, yeah, they would, but it's a blatant lie.