- Joined
- Mar 5, 2019
Victor Mignogna v. Funimation Productions, LLC, et al. (2019) - Vic's lawsuit against Funimation, VAs, and others, for over a million dollars.
- Thread starter 5t3n0g0ph3r
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2019
I'd think that it would have to be appealed to the SCOTX next. The TX rules of appellate procedure state that en banc consideration "is not favored and should not be ordered unless necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court's decision or unless extraordinary circumstances require en banc consideration." They could request it, but it sounds like it'd be difficult to justify getting it.
| Tex. R. App. P. 49.7. | Tex. R. App. P. 41.2.(c) |
DragoonSierra
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2015
That sounds like something Ty could request if he loses appeals and the decision isnt consistent with other rulings regarding TCPA. It would probably all depend on the judges reasoning though
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
As with most state supreme courts, you petition for review, and under all but a tiny fraction of cases, you have no actual right to review. The court either grants review or doesn't, and that's it.
To distinguish between the legal concept of malice and actual malice as defined under law, a scene from Falwell v. Flynt, while Flynt was being deposed as a witness in the case.
Now, first, you should never answer a deposition question like this, but more importantly, Flynt admitted his intention, up front, was to destroy Jerry Falwell and his ability to make a living doing what he did. He had every bit of malice a normal person would take the word malice to mean. This was not "actual malice" in the defamation sense, which is merely deliberately conveying a false factual statement or acting with reckless disregard for the truth. It didn't make the cartoon the libel suit was about (which falsely but clearly satirically claimed Falwell had sex with his mother in an outhouse) defamatory.
You can have "actual malice" without any emotional malice. For instance, you could not even care about the target of the defamation and were merely lying to make money. And you can have malice in the normal human sense, as Flynt did, without acting with legal "actual malice." The two meanings of the word often overlap, of course, as it's fairly rare to tell damaging lies deliberately about a person you don't dislike and wish harm, but there wouldn't be as much confusion about the term if they didn't.
It's a lot more likely to be granted if there's a dissent or if, for whatever reason, the panel's opinion is really out there and discordant with existing precedent.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
There is something relevant to Vic's case in the ruling. You know how the defendants and LawTwitter got their panties in a bunch over the Amended Petition that Ty submitted before the hearing? Well, in this case, the defendants didn't file their reply until the day of the hearing:
That must mean that the court refused to consider it, right? Well, let's see... The Court noted that the defendants raised the issue at the hearing. The plaintiff then objected to it:
Since it was late *and* the opposition objected to it, that meant the Court refused to consider it, right?
Actually, it looks like the Court said that arguing the issue is enough to preserve the argument for appeal, so it's also enough to say that it counts for the court record at the Trial Court level as well.
In the footnotes, it says, " Appellants also included disclaimer-of-reliance arguments in their reply to Sutherland’s TCPA response. Sutherland argued that the reply was not timely filed and that the trial court should not consider it, and it argues here that the trial court in fact did not consider it. ... (noting that TCPA does not contain a deadline for filing a response to a TCPA motion but that the trial court has discretion to determine the timeliness of a response). While the trial court did not strike the reply, its order denying Appellants’ TCPA motion states that the trial court had considered the motion and Sutherland’s response (with no mention of Appellants’ reply) and had “entertain[ed] the arguments of counsel.” Because the disclaimer-of-reliance issue was brought to the trial court’s attention at the hearing, we need not decide whether the trial court should have considered Appellants’ reply. "
Basically, because the issue was brought up during the hearing, it doesn't matter whether the court considered the reply or not. The information is still in there, one way or another. Given that Ty basically ran the second half of the hearing as if it were based off the 2nd Amended Petition rather than the 1st Amended Petition, it seems that the court would consider that information to be on the record.
It's not an exact parallel to what happened with Vic's case, but my take is that the Appeals Court would be more predisposed to having the information in the record and part of the basis for the appropriate ruling rather than excluding it.
That must mean that the court refused to consider it, right? Well, let's see... The Court noted that the defendants raised the issue at the hearing. The plaintiff then objected to it:
Since it was late *and* the opposition objected to it, that meant the Court refused to consider it, right?
Actually, it looks like the Court said that arguing the issue is enough to preserve the argument for appeal, so it's also enough to say that it counts for the court record at the Trial Court level as well.
In the footnotes, it says, " Appellants also included disclaimer-of-reliance arguments in their reply to Sutherland’s TCPA response. Sutherland argued that the reply was not timely filed and that the trial court should not consider it, and it argues here that the trial court in fact did not consider it. ... (noting that TCPA does not contain a deadline for filing a response to a TCPA motion but that the trial court has discretion to determine the timeliness of a response). While the trial court did not strike the reply, its order denying Appellants’ TCPA motion states that the trial court had considered the motion and Sutherland’s response (with no mention of Appellants’ reply) and had “entertain[ed] the arguments of counsel.” Because the disclaimer-of-reliance issue was brought to the trial court’s attention at the hearing, we need not decide whether the trial court should have considered Appellants’ reply. "
Basically, because the issue was brought up during the hearing, it doesn't matter whether the court considered the reply or not. The information is still in there, one way or another. Given that Ty basically ran the second half of the hearing as if it were based off the 2nd Amended Petition rather than the 1st Amended Petition, it seems that the court would consider that information to be on the record.
It's not an exact parallel to what happened with Vic's case, but my take is that the Appeals Court would be more predisposed to having the information in the record and part of the basis for the appropriate ruling rather than excluding it.
Attachments
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
They generally even allow issues raised for the first time on appeal in TCPA cases, for a variety of reasons. In most kinds of cases, they don't.
Riperoni6
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2019
My prediction is that if anything gets over turned that the KV sports will say " it doesnt matter, it will get get dismissed again"
Laundui_or_douchette?
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2019
If it gets overturned on appeal, the fucking back flipping is going to be rivaling the olympics.
And then I look forward to Ron saying that his insurance is covering everything, when they definitely fucking won’t.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2019
I'm just patiently waiting for the Himalayan mountains of salt that will flow from these sad losers.
Laundui_or_douchette?
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2019
I am not getting ahead of myself. There is every possibility that nothing comes back, VIc is fucked over and the defendants go on a massive victory lap.
The lolsuit taught me not to get ahead of yourself, as Maddox was dead to rights for sanctions and got out of it because Ramos got cancer and the new judge fucked everyone.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2019
"Vic will lose at TCPA!" He kind of did.
But...
"Vic will lose at summary judgment!" I will laugh my ass if not only Vic continues past summary judgment, but he motions for summary judgment against Ron and wins.
"Vic will lose at trial!" Oh my God, if it gets to trial Vic will clean their clocks by virtue of looking a nice, normal man, and not a hobgoblin like the defendants.
Honka Honka Burning Love
In Clown World, the only god is the one who Honks.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2019
If Vic goes to trial they are fucked.
If this goes to discovery and documents come out, things start absolutely get set ablaze. Is there anyone who isn't a complete twitter retard who thinks for a second that Funimation isn't a Cabal of Scummy Heathers?
If this goes to discovery, I expect at least 2, maybe 3 sides who have already put the torches to anything related near or far to this case.
I expect Ron to have put his old twitter in bleach, everyone except Funimation to have destroyed their old cellphones with remotes, switched companies and destroyed any record of their old service, and them having hired the Clintons foundation to "deal" with their email servers.
I'm half-kidding. I do expect them to have deleted everything, and that Funimation's lawyers to have kept traces somewhere because they should know what happens if you do not keep them.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
If anyone can tell me the way you get a TCPA reversed before substantive discovery, and then somehow lose on summary judgment after it, I'd welcome their explanations. The standards are nearly identical, except with TCPA cases you are somehow supposed to beat summary judgment standards pre-discovery. So if you lost on TCPA, but got it reversed, the appeals court essentially found you beat summary judgment standards already.
Unless some amazing bombshell comes out in discovery, how do you lose a TCPA and then go on to win a summary judgment?
I'm sure it's actually possible for this to happen, I just don't expect any illumination from the literal retards of lawl twitter.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2019
So I'm assuming summary judgment is the same in the sense that it's preponderance of the evidence but conflicts are resolved in the nonmovants favor.
Pure optimism, but let's say it gets past appeals and Vic motions for summary judgement for contractual interference against Ron. Let's also assume nothing groundbreaking comes out of discovery. How does Ron defend against that? Or does he just have to hope what he did isn't considered TI as a matter of law?
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2019
If anything gets overturned, the defendants absolutely get fucked on their own legal fees (especially MoRon, who ran up the bill specifically to try to ruin Vic), and the chances of them getting to rape Vic over hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal fees (even if it's dismissed again) goes down dramatically.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Summary judgment isn't preponderance, it's literally any evidence at all that is more than a mere scintilla. If a jury could even possibly find in the non-moving party's favor, the non-moving party is supposed to win. That is why Chupp's chuppery in this case is so intensely bad.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2019
Hmm. My understanding was that it was always preponderence of the evidence, but since all fact questions are resolved in the nonmovant's favor, the nonmovant basically won if they raised any sort of fact question.
Like, in a normal trial with the preponderance standard, Monica can claim Vic attacked her, while Vic can deny that, thus defamation. The jury would have to figure out which one is move believable, 51%-49%.
In TCPA, Monica can be "he tried to rape me!" and Vic can be all "lol no bitch", but since Vic's testimony is given full weight he automatically wins preponderence of the evidence standard because his evidence is automatically presumed to be more believable.
Or I'm just a moron.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
No, it isn't always preponderance. There's "clear and convincing" and plenty of other standards. And I was just quoting the federal standard for the "scintilla" thing but even Texas courts have used that language. "The trial court may not grant a no-evidence summary judgment if the respondent brings forth more than a scintilla of probative evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact." Oasis Oil Corp., 60 S.W.3d at 250; Zapata, 997 S.W.2d at 747.
That's from the ridiculously named Bonifacio Moron case. Yes, someone was actually named that.
Preponderance would not be remotely appropriate at summary judgment, because it would require the judge to decide the weight of evidence. The judge is literally not allowed to do this at all. If the judge could just decide the facts in any case, it would completely eliminate the right to trial by jury enshrined in the Seventh Amendment.
(Arguably, allowing summary judgment at all violates the Seventh Amendment but this is an issue argued and lost long ago.)
BeHappyForever
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2019
Funimation's letter to the court. They have submitted their copies of the brief first yesterday.
