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

OneHandClapping said:
The only thing I see related to dates is Vic's cross appellee brief (for the fees), which is due the 20th. Don't think there's anything for the appellate replies.
Click to expand...

They also can file a reply to the response brief. They reserved a couple thousand words for that.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: OneHandClapping
AnOminous said:
They also can file a reply to the response brief. They reserved a couple thousand words for that.
Click to expand...

paper stack giant huge big large climb gigantic papers.jpg


We NEEeeed an extension and leave to file pages upon pages of libel we shouldn't. -half lung hitler

Also Vic rapes kids - legal document filed in Texas.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: 774
HTTP Error 404 said:
They'll request it, then the defense will oppose it, and we'll be waiting for the next 6 months for a hearing on it.
Click to expand...
I suppose that's possible, but doesn't seem like it should be too likely. The defense hasn't opposed any of the other motions in the appeal process. Then again, this might be a little out of the ordinary.
The best and greatest said:
Just remember the longer this goes on the deeper that debt-hole the defendants are in gets.
Click to expand...
That too. That should be a disincentive against continuing to use stupid tactics with motions.

Should.
 
774 said:
That too. That should be a disincentive against continuing to use stupid tactics with motions.

Should.
Click to expand...

Why should it? They’re convinced the GFM is going straight into their accounts after all these wins.
They’re only wracking up “free” money. They’re also banking on Chupp’s retroactive appeals fees kicking in giving them even more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GenericReviewerDraco and NadeND-001
diskboomer said:
Why should it? They’re convinced the GFM is going straight into their accounts after all these wins.
They’re only wracking up “free” money. They’re also banking on Chupp’s retroactive appeals fees kicking in giving them even more.
Click to expand...
"Should", as in, if they were actually reasonable people, with halfway decent sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Garm
AnOminous said:
They also can file a reply to the response brief. They reserved a couple thousand words for that.
Click to expand...
We know that Vic’s cross-appellate brief is due on August 20th. Does that mean he replies to all the defendant’s reply brief, or does it just pertain to the sanction fees from November 2019?

EDIT: I meant to say April 20th, not August 20th. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
HighwayStar said:
We know that Vic’s cross-appellate brief is due on the August 20th. Does that mean he replies to all the defendant’s reply brief, or does it just pertain to the sanction fees from November 2019?
Click to expand...

August? I think the cross-appellate brief is due April 20th.
As for your other question, it might be all of the above. I'm expecting an extension to be filed as well as a request to extend the word count (it's a lot to respond to).
 
  • Like
Reactions: NadeND-001
5t3n0g0ph3r said:
August? I think the cross-appellate brief is due April 20th.
As for your other question, it might be all of the above. I'm expecting an extension to be filed as well as a request to extend the word count (it's a lot to respond to).
Click to expand...
Yeah I meant April. Bad misspelling on my part. Sorry about that.
 
HighwayStar said:
We know that Vic’s cross-appellate brief is due on August 20th. Does that mean he replies to all the defendant’s reply brief, or does it just pertain to the sanction fees from November 2019?

EDIT: I meant to say April 20th, not August 20th. Sorry.
Click to expand...

The general way it happens is

Brief by appellant --> Response brief by appellee --> Smaller reply by appellant --> even smaller brief by appellee

The last two are optional and don't happen in any case. Any more than this number of replies is greatly frowned upon.

The MoRon defendants filed two briefs, one was a reply to the appellant's opening brief and the other was their own opening brief.

So the next brief by the appellant in response to that will be both a response brief to the cross-appellant's opening brief and a smaller reply brief to MoRon's response brief.

They will probably try to move over words from the response to the nearly useless fees brief into their reply brief about the actual substance.

Plus they have to reply to two other defendants.

And there is both a per brief word limit and a per party aggregate total word limit. They are obviously going to want to use as many words on the actual substance as possible. It's awkward because of how the rules work and how the parties are situated. Never mind the Chuppery.

Despite this, the appeals court is going to handle this by actually digging into the record. Unlike in trial court proceedings, the record here is static and isn't going to change. So there really isn't the option just to spam it with offal and garbage like the Lunger did below.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Botchy Galoop, Exterminatus, Allanon and 8 others
AnOminous said:
Brief by appellant --> Response brief by appellee --> Smaller reply by appellant --> even smaller brief by appellee
Click to expand...
All the :optimistic: in the world for that. They'll cram in as much defamation and complaints about Youtube lawyers as they can in that brief. Hell, they'll probably request an extension on the word limit just to pack in more shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back