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

Kendrick said:
I'm gonna go on an uneducated limb and say that the wording is that initially, "appellees' briefs" means all the briefs from the appellee's parties, so one brief per defendant.
Click to expand...

It does. That letter is addressed to all of them. Also MoRon are, at least unless it happens otherwise, still filing jointly.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 774, Kendrick, GenericReviewerDraco and 2 others
Jamie Marchi's motion for extension is granted.

Marchi_Extension_Granted.JPG


Interesting that the court still have the March 10th due date for the appellee's brief on the calendar.

court_calendar_03022020.JPG
 

Attachments

Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: RemoveKebab, ConSluttant, TexOffender and 24 others
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: RemoveKebab, 774, biteXsized and 1 other person
break these cuffs said:
Also, anything that can continue to highlight how the whole process is arbitrary and stupid; how it's carefully crafted to leech money off of the citizens it's supposed to serve.
Click to expand...
Politicians were and are disproportionately lawyers, and they're the ones who write the laws. A lot of these politicians are good friends with lawyers (and judges) who of course contribute to their campaigns. So when you get a bunch of gridlock in the legal system and get shit like poorly written anti-SLAPP laws that make the cost of the case for the defendant as high as it would be if it were thrown out under other laws, well, consider it a kickback from politicians to their lawyer friends and donors.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RemoveKebab, 774, lemmiwinks and 4 others
OneHandClapping said:
Maybe come the 19th, the court of appeals will be extra anal and ask where the fuck the MoRon appellee brief that was due on the 10th is.
Click to expand...

I think they intended to extend the deadline for both to the 19th. After all, that's what the motion asked for and the form letter they sent didn't indicate they were denying the motion even in part.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 774 and biteXsized
AnOminous said:
I think they intended to extend the deadline for both to the 19th. After all, that's what the motion asked for and the form letter they sent didn't indicate they were denying the motion even in part.
Click to expand...

It'll be great in either case, because Lemoine said that we are amongst the "dumbest laymen in law knowledge", and Doucette said that if he ever found out Wolman and Randazza were soliciting legal advice from us he'd fire them, and yet here we are saying it begs the question on when their response is due and that they should seek clarification from the court. Rather than do it they're going to assume that both are due when there's a decent chance the court didn't extend the reply brief that they have to file on the 10th, and this will be another brief--the second in a row--that they will have to say, "Well, we intended to do this, and we didn't file the other brief because we just assumed you'd be okay with it rather than take the necessary precautions and file a motion to extend or for clairifcation." Imagine, the court of appeals is coming into this and seeing one law firm representing defendants who don't even do something as basic as that while the other two lawyers do basic first-year law school graduate shit, and that same law firm is asking for almost six times the amount that the cheapest lawyer on the defense is asking for and trying to justify it by saying "we did more work". You have only one chance to make a good first impression, and if Wick Phillips make assumptions that don't pan out, their first two briefs will set the stage for this court and likely drag MoRon back on that alone.

And the only ones to benefit from this on the defendants' side is MoRon, because if they want to sue for malpractice or need a defense as to why they shouldn't pay the $180,000 they still owe before appeals they can point to these two instances and say, "Your honors, how can we be expected to pay for shoddy performance when this was the way they handled the appeals to make sure they got paid according to the TCPA?"
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Maraschino, Francis York Morgan, LawTwitter is Dumb and 7 others
Lord of the Large Pants said:
So I was reading in one of the other threads that Chupp got voted out. How will this affect Vic's case, or will it? Will Vic get a new judge? Will Chupp finish the cases he's already started? or what happens?
Click to expand...
Nothing, Chupp is just not the part of the appellate court like he wanted but was too poor to fund the pr required to win and was basically bottom of the barrel in terms of placement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GenericReviewerDraco and 774
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back