I'll post the link in the OP to when the appeal decision comes.
Leave as a record for future generations, to learn about the terribleness of the judicial system.
At this point, if there's a Weeb Wars 2, it would probably involve someone entirely different, like Quinton Flynn and the crazy bitch Krissy.
Could be they decided to take this at the pace of a normal appeal and are working their way through a backlog. Would imply the decision is not terribly far off.
I'm going to invoke the Half Life 3 Law. By mentioning the unmentionable you have further delayed it. Repent soon for your deeds or thy release date shall move back 1 more day per F5 for news. May god have mercy on your soul.
This would be perfect if "Half-Life 3" were somehow roughly replaced by "Mignogna v. Funimation appeal" (or something similar). Not sure whether just crossing out and hand-writing, or pasting something more authentic-looking over the top, is better, though.
Even then the discovery rule might not apply if there is no other witness to fulfill the "objectively verifiable" part of the requirement. Browning Mfg v. Salisbury, 179 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1999). As the appellate court pointed out in John Priester, Jr. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 12-40032 (5th Cir. 2013), "The Texas courts have set the “inherently undiscoverable” bar high, to the extent that the discovery rule will apply only where it is nearly impossible for the plaintiff to be aware of his injury at the time he is injured."
Is this the asshole that called Vic a pedophile in the appellate breifing or was that Funimations lawyer?
Does that even apply in this case?
Only if there are undiscovered statements by either currently dismissed or previously unknown defendants, and only if they pass the very high bar of the "inherently undiscoverable" rule. There's also any of Ron Toye's incessant chihuahua-like yapping and arfing that's within the year statute of limitations.
This is what you reply to a comment about the possible existence of private defamatory statements.
The plaintiff already knew of defamatory statements, and that Ron Toye (and probably others) were going around making them in private as well as public, and that other conventions had canceled like Kamehacon, which had been directly interfered with by Toye. It could be inferred that other as-yet-known parties, or Ron himself, had done that to these other parties as well.
Your setting was that the statement couldn't have been discovered by reasonable due diligence.
These people do everything online. They could have sued the breaching conventions and done discovery on why from their ISPs. They could have hired private investigators. It wasn't actually impossible to infer the existence of such statements being highly likely. Now, as for practicality and expense, that's another matter entirely.
Yet again, that wasn't the setting in the message Useful_Mistake replied to with his "high bar" citation.
Same. But someone here seems to have a hard time understanding the concept of hypotheticality.
It's when you should have known it according to the "nearly impossible" standard. So if you could have discovered it and chose not to, maybe because you had higher priorities, you don't get the benefit of the exception to the rule. Or show that it would have been an act of futility because of the exceptional sneakiness of the defendant. "Nearly impossible" means something more than merely somewhat difficult and expensive.
Yes, I understand that. I'm using "known" loosely as a substitute for "reasonnable assumption that the plaintiff could/should have known".
Holy shit, how are you still so butthurt? If my posts make you so angry, just don't read them.
Dude, learn to read. None of this would be a problem if you, at least, could read as well as a ten year old kid.
Like a true angry poster, you managed to miss half of my comment.
Ironic.
Like always, that's an inaccurate assessment of my comment. My comment was that to a private conversation, the Discovery Rule might not always apply, and that "objectively verifiable" part of the rule is still an important thing to address while debating on applicability of Discovery rule. Something that was not previously addressed.
