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

AnOminous said:
That extra $200K was self-inflicted. They had no reason to engage in a bunch of pointless discovery, since the whole point of a SLAPP motion is that the complaint is so frivolous on its face that it entirely fails to state a claim. If it does, any evidence more than a scintilla (like an affidavit from a party with personal knowledge) is sufficient to make out a prima facie showing. That is if the judge even knows what that is.
Click to expand...
I know that, you know that. I don't think the anti-Vic nutjobs know it yet didn't have a single objection to how Chupp ruled. Because that would imply MoRon attempted to use the law as a sledgehammer against evil Lasagna man and it blew up in their face.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uranus Pink, ConSluttant and 6thRanger
OneHandClapping said:
I know that, you know that. I don't think the anti-Vic nutjobs know it yet didn't have a single objection to how Chupp ruled. Because that would imply MoRon attempted to use the law as a sledgehammer against evil Lasagna man and it blew up in their face.
Click to expand...
I think they know that, they're just damage controlling and going "no no no, Chupp was right on all of it, except the fees hearing, but he was right on it all".
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Uranus Pink, GenericReviewerDraco, 6thRanger and 2 others
Binary Code said:
Is the hearing tomorrow Open? Do we have Kiwis on the ground to report? I suppose in the era of covid maybe someone has a link to report on the Zoom call
Click to expand...
There isn't a hearing. There's just a date when they officially start considering the case so that they can calculate all of the submission deadlines.
 
DragoonSierra said:
@Nontransferable Whats the bare minimum amount of time the appeals court has taken to rule on a case recently?
Click to expand...
@AnOminous looked up the case record a while back.
AnOminous said:
Case events from the last five Second District cases with memorandum opinions, specifically the dates between submission and the opinion being rendered.

View attachment 1492795
View attachment 1492796
View attachment 1492797
View attachment 1492798
View attachment 1492799

None of these were accelerated appeals, while this case is. The period between submission and rendering opinion range between 22 days and slightly over seven months.
Click to expand...
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Harvey Danger
OneHandClapping said:
And the waiting begins.

As an aside, it seems no one submitted courtesy briefs except Funimation.
Click to expand...

Assholes, all of them. How the fuck do you not do this? Over a quarter million in crowdfunding isn't enough for some goddamn copies? They're just that goddamn cheap? How. Fucking. Embarrassing. Yet again more amateur hour shit.
 
  • Agree
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: ConSluttant, not william stenchever, TurboNAS and 14 others
AnOminous said:
Assholes, all of them. How the fuck do you not do this? Over a quarter million in crowdfunding isn't enough for some goddamn copies? They're just that goddamn cheap? How. Fucking. Embarrassing. Yet again more amateur hour shit.
Click to expand...
I guess there's a chance they'll appear tomorrow morning, but yeah, seriously. This is game face time, not change the batteries in your spectacles time.
 
Cross-posting from the Rackets Weeb Wars thread.

Last March I teased you guys with something, saying Nick had "made me aware of something" but I didn't give any more than that. It was because Nick said I could tease it here, but not explain what it is as he didn't want Lawtwitter to get wind of anything. At this point I can now inform you all of what it was.

Under the Texas Rules of Appelate Procedure (Rule 11) the clerk of the court "may receive, but not file, an amicus curiae brief." Because of this, literally any swinging dick could file one. Nick, at the time, said he was considering submitting one but he was waiting on that, and I suspected it might be as close to the final day as possible to submit one. I can now confirm that Nick has submitted one.

1600784960106.png


EDIT: Nick right now to the CoA:

1600785674530.png
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Activelo, not william stenchever, Zurui and 28 others
Spectre_06 said:
Cross-posting from the Rackets Weeb Wars thread.

Last March I teased you guys with something, saying Nick had "made me aware of something" but I didn't give any more than that. It was because Nick said I could tease it here, but not explain what it is as he didn't want Lawtwitter to get wind of anything. At this point I can now inform you all of what it was.

Under the Texas Rules of Appelate Procedure (Rule 11) the clerk of the court "may receive, but not file, an amicus curiae brief." Because of this, literally any swinging dick could file one. Nick, at the time, said he was considering submitting one but he was waiting on that, and I suspected it might be as close to the final day as possible to submit one. I can now confirm that Nick has submitted one.

View attachment 1613554

EDIT: Nick right now to the CoA:

View attachment 1613571
Click to expand...

It's good that Nick didn't let word of this get out beforehand. If Lawtwitter had known he was going to do this, they would have all decided they needed to get on the train and the poor CoA would have had to deal with a ridiculous number of briefs from people larping as Lawyers. "No, your honors, I'm not a lawyer, but I've played the intern to a lawyer on Twitter, so I totes know what I'm talking about!"
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: not william stenchever, Slimy Time, Exterminatus and 14 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back