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

GenericReviewerDraco said:
Nah, he chose the MeToo route and is a creepy sexual deviant worse than 20 Shanes/D.C. Douglas' put together. He needs to be taught a lesson. That and I want him to so scared he does a flip. Sex pests like Chris Sabat need to end their worthless lives.
Click to expand...

Well see in that case he doesn't need a Vic, because Vic is a reasonable guy.

He needs a chick with enough screeching power to staple his dick to the wall and take him for a ride through the Tarrant County courthouse.

Or....He just needs to piss off Manjaw.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 774 and Kosher Salt
DragoonSierra said:
Wouldnt that be malpractice on the part of Funis lawyers?
Click to expand...

Legal malpractice is basically just a lawyer doing their job badly, so it wouldn't apply. Attorney misconduct could potentially apply, but I don't think it would. I don't think there's a professional obligation for attorneys to do things fast so the opposing counsel isn't out of the statute of limitations for lawsuits against unrelated 3rd parties. Maybe there's weird ways to get it put in there, but it wouldn't be any of the currently involved parties that would determine that anyway, so it isn't super important.

If discovery starts could BHBC subpoena non parties like Marzgurl for communications with the defendants?
Click to expand...

They can subpoena pretty much anyone who has evidence that could serve Vic's case, though some might fight it or otherwise not comply.
 
Dumb Bitch Smoothie said:
Since we didn't hear about the hearing being postponed I'm assuming tomorrow is going to be a day where KV and Lawtwitter come here to gloat about fees being awarded unless things really go south for them.
Click to expand...
Most likely. There is a chance that Chupp can continue the hearing, but honestly, 17 days is plenty of time to respond to 3 motions. If a litigant's team is already really busy (like they're getting ready for another trial/hearing/whatever), they should know that they're going to be swamped very quickly and immediately ask for a continuance.

Since Vic's motion for continuance mostly says "we need more time to sufficient", rather than specifying why 17 days wasn't enough, it's a longshot. Also, because Vic's motion was filed the week of the hearing (instead of much earlier), it hurts Vic's chances.

But hey, if you want to root for Vic's lawyers to get more time, I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong. Chupp could make that happen.

At this point, a big "win" for Vic is getting <$250k attorneys fees + sanctions against him (not including appellate fees). Defendants are asking for ~480k in current fees, plus fees for the fees hearing, fees through appeal, and sanctions. A "win" right now for Vic is to keep the Defendants under 50% of their ask with minimal sanctions.

A "meh" for Vic is about 65-75% of fees + small sanctions, or under $375k due now + various appellate fees. Judges usually cut at least 5-25% off the top, and so getting more than a 25% haircut is a win for Vic (for the purposes this hearing). Plus that also meand sanctions weren't too bad.

A "win" for KV is any award over $375k-450k + appellate fees. As long as Chupp gives the usual 5-25% haircut to the fees, every appellate court in Texas will affirm on the fees award (if not the TCPA ruling). JSL block-billed and, as Nick pointed out, there are at least a few entries which are objectionable. The KV attorneys, under a typical Texas judge, should expect a 10-20% haircut.

A "Chupp" for KV is an award over $500k + appellate fees. That means nearly 100% of fees plus significant sanctions. It means that Chupp really wanted to hammer Vic.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: GenericReviewerDraco
I can't imagine said:
Legal malpractice is basically just a lawyer doing their job badly, so it wouldn't apply.
Click to expand...

Actionable malpractice is more than that. In Texas, it's (1) that there is duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant; (2) that the duty was breached; (3) that the breach proximately caused the plaintiff injury; and (4) that damages occurred.

So first they have to have had some duty to perform competently. If you're actually a lawyer's client, you are always going to meet that. However, just like other negligence torts, the breach (i.e. the bad performance) has to cause actual damages. Otherwise, it's no harm no foul.

Proximate cause means the poor performance has to lead somewhat directly to the damages, not by some extravagant domino effect that couldn't be predicted.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: 774, Yuusha-sama, Kosher Salt and 3 others
AnOminous said:
Actionable malpractice is more than that. In Texas, it's (1) that there is duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant; (2) that the duty was breached; (3) that the breach proximately caused the plaintiff injury; and (4) that damages occurred.

So first they have to have had some duty to perform competently. If you're actually a lawyer's client, you are always going to meet that. However, just like other negligence torts, the breach (i.e. the bad performance) has to cause actual damages. Otherwise, it's no harm no foul.

Proximate cause means the poor performance has to lead somewhat directly to the damages, not by some extravagant domino effect that couldn't be predicted.
Click to expand...

You're correct, but since obviously none of that applied to the situation, I figured it wasn't that important to go into detail.

Since you're here, though, would the aforementioned scenario (a client wanting their lawyer to delay discovery until after the statute of limitations against another person has expired) qualify as attorney misconduct? I can't think of how it would be, but it's very much not something I'm experienced in.
 
I can't imagine said:
You're correct, but since obviously none of that applied to the situation, I figured it wasn't that important to go into detail.

Since you're here, though, would the aforementioned scenario (a client wanting their lawyer to delay discovery until after the statute of limitations against another person has expired) qualify as attorney misconduct? I can't think of how it would be, but it's very much not something I'm experienced in.
Click to expand...

Not really. A client can ask their lawyer to do whatever they want. It also depends how they delay it.

There's no reason to think any of that happened, though.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Kosher Salt and I can't imagine
Apteryx Owenii said:
It's not about money... it's about sending a message.

Seriously though, I'm very disappointed that they didn't drag Allison Cooke into court over this mess as she was the sperg that started it all.
Click to expand...
There needs to be damages for Vic to sue someone for defamation, most of the Twitter idiots couldn't move more than a few hundred dollars for charity, their comments didn't cause damages because they are meaningless.

The actual defendants have presence in the dubbing industry so they were able to cause damages, as such, they got sued.

AnOminous said:
Not really. A client can ask their lawyer to do whatever they want. It also depends how they delay it.

There's no reason to think any of that happened, though.
Click to expand...
I mentioned this scenario but Lemoine not doing it because Monica and Ron asked, but because Sabat (Or any third party really) referred Lemoine to them with an under the table deal to delay litigation to avoid any possible round 2.

That would probably be sanctionable because he is working against the interest of his own clients.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: knux
I think it's been mentioned before but I didn't see any docs uploaded. MoRon and Marchi signed onto Funimation's response to Vic's motion for continuance. They can't let Lemwaaah wheeze all on his lonesome.
 

Attachments

  • Informative
Reactions: Francis York Morgan, Harvey Danger, AStupidMonkey and 2 others
LuNaS said:
There needs to be damages for Vic to sue someone for defamation, most of the Twitter idiots couldn't move more than a few hundred dollars for charity, their comments didn't cause damages because they are meaningless.

The actual defendants have presence in the dubbing industry so they were able to cause damages, as such, they got sued.
Click to expand...

HanLeia alone may not have caused much in the way of legal damages, particularly since calling someone 'creepy towards underage fans' is pretty subjective.

But Marzgurl? There is no way to pretend that her arms tweets didn't cause damages- and since she claimed volumes of "sexual misconduct" it is word-for-word included as per se defamation in Texas caselaw, which allows for presumed damages in that case. But they went for defendants who actually had assets including the big-pocketed company. And while I understand that from a practical point of view, it's still unfortunate that some of those who made the earliest damaging claims get to sit on the sidelines.
 
  • Feels
  • Informative
Reactions: Crabbo and GenericReviewerDraco
Apteryx Owenii said:
HanLeia alone may not have caused much in the way of legal damages, particularly since calling someone 'creepy towards underage fans' is pretty subjective.

But Marzgurl? There is no way to pretend that her arms tweets didn't cause damages- and since she claimed volumes of "sexual misconduct" it is word-for-word included as per se defamation in Texas caselaw, which allows for presumed damages in that case. But they went for defendants who actually had assets including the big-pocketed company. And while I understand that from a practical point of view, it's still unfortunate that some of those who made the earliest damaging claims get to sit on the sidelines.
Click to expand...
I know Vic fighting in the first place wasn't predicted, but do you think that Vic was targeted since he wouldn't be out for blood even if he did go to court?
 
Apteryx Owenii said:
HanLeia alone may not have caused much in the way of legal damages, particularly since calling someone 'creepy towards underage fans' is pretty subjective.
Click to expand...

This is less subjective.

1574316960500.png


Random Internet Person said:
I know Vic fighting in the first place wasn't predicted, but do you think that Vic was targeted since he wouldn't be out for blood even if he did go to court?
Click to expand...

People have been saying this stuff for a decade. It is unlikely that they would have foreseen that it would turn out as it did.

1574317205500.png

https://archive.ph/nkeFz
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Crabbo, Harvey Danger, AStupidMonkey and 3 others
Random Internet Person said:
I know Vic fighting in the first place wasn't predicted, but do you think that Vic was targeted since he wouldn't be out for blood even if he did go to court?
Click to expand...
Vic was targeted by chance due to the braindead pull moron confusing him with someone else. The Funi clique took that as a reason to get rid of him, as he was about to get a producer/director job and he'd likely want them to be more professional, harder working and they couldn't be as lazy anymore (see bitching about Vic wanting extra takes). It's the reason why Monica's story is the jellybean story in the investigation, and not the super rape she came up with later after realising her #metoo wasn't strong enough.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Francis York Morgan, Kosher Salt and GenericReviewerDraco
Random Internet Person said:
I know Vic fighting in the first place wasn't predicted, but do you think that Vic was targeted since he wouldn't be out for blood even if he did go to court?
Click to expand...
I'm one of those people that had no clue who any of these people are until the lawsuit began to materialize so I don't know enough about him as a person to make any conclusions. It's all lolsuit for me. Good place to be so you can laugh at both sides.
Nontransferable said:
This is less subjective.
View attachment 1017990
Click to expand...
Case in point- I had THOUGHT she said something clearly per se defamatory but then when I made the mistake of reviewing some 'news articles' they didn't mention that tweet. Charitably they didn't want to reproduce a libelous statement; less charitably, they didn't want to inform readers of just how ridiculously defamatory her statements were.

It's hard to imagine anything more damaging to one's reputation than being called a pedophile. That's why you don't have to prove monetary damages. And yet she can make these statements and not get pulled into a lawsuit where others are getting included for much less in the way of smearing. I don't know the context of that particular tweet, maybe it wasn't specific enough in identifying Vic.
 
Is it possible MoRon didnt know Funimation was paying for thier defense?

GenericReviewerDraco said:
Why does it feel like the theoretical targets in round two feel less profitable to nuke into the ground? Other than Sabat, its just a long armed mutant poorer than Manjawllo, a shitty boomer anime news site, and Gawker remnants. Feels like winning round 1 solves 95% of the problems and round 2 is just slaughtering some penniless background snakes and diet (HA!) Weinstein.
Click to expand...
Manjaw might have actually committed TI tho. And perjury if it ever gets to that.
 
  • Informative
  • Winner
Reactions: Imperial Agent, Yuusha-sama and GenericReviewerDraco
AnOminous said:
Actionable malpractice is more than that. In Texas, it's (1) that there is duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant; (2) that the duty was breached; (3) that the breach proximately caused the plaintiff injury; and (4) that damages occurred.

So first they have to have had some duty to perform competently. If you're actually a lawyer's client, you are always going to meet that. However, just like other negligence torts, the breach (i.e. the bad performance) has to cause actual damages. Otherwise, it's no harm no foul.

Proximate cause means the poor performance has to lead somewhat directly to the damages, not by some extravagant domino effect that couldn't be predicted.
Click to expand...
Would the failure to provide discovery within the required timeframe count?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back