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

[TheClappening]

I'll need to unpack the motion later (or maybe I'll just let Nick do it for me) but it looks like Funimation went the expected route about their tweet. i.e. the harassment statement was in general, not directed at Vic, and they did not imply that Vic was terminated because of harassment or threatening behavior.

 

[wickedlilium]

Keep in mind that a TCPA isn't a defence. It's more like a statement that "this lawsuit is frivolous for these reasons and therefore we shouldn't be required to defend against it". It's Vic's side complaint which has to pass muster here.

I can't remember what hanleia linked to. If it was the tumblr then some of the allegations are demonstrably false as Vic wasn't at the conventions where they purportedly occurred.

Why they fired Vic is only relevant in light of their tweet implying improper behaviour by Vic. Had they not made that tweet, they could have fired him for any reason or no reason at all and not be called upon to justify it.

would be nice if someone had the tweet

I'll need to unpack the motion later (or maybe I'll just let Nick do it for me) but it looks like Funimation went the expected route about their tweet. i.e. the harassment statement was in general, not directed at Vic, and they did not imply that Vic was terminated because of harassment or threatening behavior.

Ver archivo adjunto 824421

I seen that too, and I already stated Jamie should've been punished but currently we have nothing done.


From just the exhibits it just seems like a desperate attempt at a TCPA as most of it's related to easily disproved allegations and they all say ALLEGATIONS, not "HE DID THIS!!!!!" or about the lawsuit at hand that just regurgitates what's already been talked about prior.

I would also like to point out that there is no mention (from what I seen) that states the "investigation" had a NDA attached to it. Makes me think they never even recorded or wrote down anything especially when you consider the interview was over the phone.
Hard to see their TCPA holding water considering it's basically stating there is a chance we goofed up right there in the TCPA already.

 

[KittyLoaf]

Nick mentioned Twitter replies can represent a reasonable person. What about a vice principal (Monica Rial) replying directly to FUNi's tweet and continuing on Twitter, claiming that the investigation involved dozens of women, called it very thorough ... blowing it up to something much much much bigger and more serious than it actually was?

Edit: and since the original tweet said "following an investigation, we're firing this guy" (not an exact quote) and FUNi made no attempt to correct what Monica and Ron were saying (I don't remember seeing Marchi mention the investigation), could that somehow "enhance" the defamatory nature of FUNi's original tweet?

EDIT 2: Because, I'll admit, I remember thinking that the investigation had more weight, based on what Monica was saying about it, at the time.

 

[repentance]

I would also like to point out that there is no mention (from what I seen) that states the "investigation" had a NDA attached to it.

Nobody in their right mind would sign an NDA in relation to a workplace investigation in which they were a party unless they were receiving some kind of settlement related to the investigation. The duty to maintain confidentiality lays with the company, not those interviewed.

 

[Laughing-Man]

So here’s a wild theory, what if all that questioning about Star Trek wasn’t supposed to establish Vic as a public figure? What if it was intended to try and get CBS to come after Vic like they did Axanar?

Think about it, the only way that the defendants theoretically could pull off a win is if Vic gives up. They can’t win by raw attrition because of the GFM, and us here at the farms providing cheap discovery. The only way to actually win by attrition here would be to open up a second front so to speak.

Now they wouldn’t know this because I think this came out after the deposition, but Midnight’s Edge interviewed the guy behind Axanar, and he said that he asked why he was the fan production getting sued. The response from the CBS guy was apparently “no one thinks that Vic is actually Star Trek” so the defendants wouldn’t know Vic was never going to be sued by CBS.

Talking Axanar with Alec Peters: The Star Trek Fan Film still in the making

Star Trek and fan productions peacefully co-existed for decades, until CBS took legal action against Alec Peters’ «Axanar». Fans first got a glimpse of the a...

youtu.be

 

[N1bbaN3rd]

TI requires an underlying wrongful act. If defamation is not established, then TI is also not established.

Not in Texas. Texas hasn't adopted the Second Restatement of Torts, so truth is not an affirmative defense to TI. Failure to prove defamation does not necessarily destroy Vic's claim for TI. Even if everything in Toye's texts to Kamehacon were the truth (and we know they're not), he could still be held liable.

 

[DragoonSierra]

Doesn't the I09 article cite the Funi investigation? Isn't it pretty stupid to use that and not produce the investigation?

That basically means Beard can ask for it to defend against the TCPA right?

That strikes me as sort of problematic for purposes of Funi's TCPA. They are going to have to produce the Investigation anyway as an element of the TCPA filing, because it is referenced by their evidence. But even then, referencing the io9 article would seem to work against their motion. I mean they are essentially putting forth all the other public information about Vic as evidence that they are more or less "going with the flow" as it were. But the evidence that they put forth, directly references their in house confidential HR investigation... y'know the one that only they had access to or knew about and that their employees were supposed to be under NDA;s regarding. So their is no way public knowledge of that investigation to be out there without their agents direct actions. Now I may be wrong on this, but to me, at a casual glance, that seems a rather stupid approach to take.

So youre saying the article implies having seen the results of the investigation. Which they werent supposed to have. And Funimation using that in their TCPA implies that they might have given it to them or are at least alleging it to be the truth?

You're right, and it's annoying because I know how Funimation works, and Ron absolutely does constitute an agent in reality, but it's not so easy to prove that conclusively to someone who isn't already familiar with who they are and how they operate.

Can you elaborate further?

 

[AStupidMonkey]

I'm still looking for the white paper. Somebody else may have it linked already. But one thing that springs to mind regarding this investigation is in Texas there is a Statute of Limitations for any such claims. 180 days or 300 days depending on the nature. You can't actually go back years to dredge up this stuff.

I keep getting timed out, but i believe this was the link Nick was referring too

Workplace Investigations - Basic Issues For Employers

Google cache link works for me and archive

See also:

Updated EEOC Retaliation Guidance Suggests Scrutiny for Internal Investigation Practices

Lexology – The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission takes an expansive position on protection given to persons who make internal complaints about discrimination in bad faith in updated guidance on retaliation law.

scipol.duke.edu

From the EEOC, and available elsewhere. This was just the first place I found it without a paywall/login.

 

[Red Scare]

First time poster, but I was lurking here for quite a while. I have no idea how big companies are supposed to conduct investigations like that, but this investigation (the same investigation that Ron and other cucks were using as a solid proof that Vic is rapist) was just four phonecalls. One of those phonecalls was about jellybeans. What the actual fuck!

It sounds nice isn't it? "There were several investigations!" That sounds like there was some actual detective work put into it. Nope, four phonecalls. That's fucked up.

 

[AStupidMonkey]

First time poster, but I was lurking here for quite a while. I have no idea how big companies are supposed to conduct investigations like that, but this investigation (the same investigation that Ron and other cucks were using as a solid proof that Vic is rapist) was just four phonecalls. One of those phonecalls was about jellybeans. What the actual fuck!

It sounds nice isn't it? "There were several investigations!" That sounds like there was some actual detective work put into it. Nope, four phonecalls. That's fucked up.

Welcome to the farms. Mind the tard-cum. It gets everywhere.

The thing that bothers me about this posturing is the repeated use of the word "credible." What does that mean here? Can it simply mean that "yes, he did in fact eat the jellybean, ergo the claim is credible"?

 

[Jub-Jub]

I have no idea how big companies are supposed to conduct investigations like that, but this investigation (the same investigation that Ron and other cucks were using as a solid proof that Vic is rapist) was just four phonecalls. One of those phonecalls was about jellybeans. What the actual fuck!

The post above yours has two great sources for how these investigations are supposed to go down. Given that the TCPA has an affidavit on how the investigation was carried out and not the investigation itself is a huge red flag to me. It could be a part of a strategy they are running with, but it implies they haven't followed basic guidelines. Other indicators such as the multitude of employees/contractors talking about or implying knowledge of the investigation and how Vic=bad tells me they failed horribly. I really hope they ignored the whitepaper because it tells you over and over again that if you don't follow basic guidelines you'll find yourself in a lawsuit.

Whitepaper:

Nonetheless, employers must be careful to keep tense situations from escalating out of hand, since fine legal distinctions between "negligent" and "intentional" may be lost on juries in a close case.

Somebody told Nick about the jellybean story and Nick recently stated that some Funimation employees internally asked the company to do something to address the shitshow, and they apparently did nothing.

 

[Wilhelm Bittrich]

So here’s a wild theory, what if all that questioning about Star Trek wasn’t supposed to establish Vic as a public figure? What if it was intended to try and get CBS to come after Vic like they did Axanar?

Think about it, the only way that the defendants theoretically could pull off a win is if Vic gives up. They can’t win by raw attrition because of the GFM, and us here at the farms providing cheap discovery. The only way to actually win by attrition here would be to open up a second front so to speak.

Now they wouldn’t know this because I think this came out after the deposition, but Midnight’s Edge interviewed the guy behind Axanar, and he said that he asked why he was the fan production getting sued. The response from the CBS guy was apparently “no one thinks that Vic is actually Star Trek” so the defendants wouldn’t know Vic was never going to be sued by CBS.

Talking Axanar with Alec Peters: The Star Trek Fan Film still in the making

Star Trek and fan productions peacefully co-existed for decades, until CBS took legal action against Alec Peters’ «Axanar». Fans first got a glimpse of the a...

youtu.be

The reason why CBS or Paramount didn't went and sued Star trek Continues is that it was/is run as a non profit charity.
From their website:
Trek Continues, Inc. (tax ID #47-2513580) is operated as a non-profit, non-stock public charity
within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the regulations thereunder.

Q: Speaking of property ownership, can you elaborate on how the law works that allows for this? Teach young filmmakers about why they can do it too!
VM: There is no law. We are simply relying on the good graces of CBS to allow us and other fan productions to exist. They graciously do so AS LONG AS we are not monetizing it in any way. We are not to make money or profit financially from their property. But that’s not a problem for us, since that’s never why we wanted to do this in the first place.
Full interview here:

Star Trek Continues: Interview With Vic Mignogna

Interview with filmmaker and actor Vic Mignogna, one of the talents behind Star Trek Continues.

renegadecinema.com

Axanar was never intended to be a charity and that's the fucking reason why CBS an Paramount sued them. It was a commercial venue from the beginning.
To be frank, they made what until today? 2 Million dollars? And all they did, with a PAID team, is a 20 minute greenscreen shot of talking heads, and two people walking for about 3 minutes... in what... 4-5 years? That's almost Star Citizen levels of whale milking.

Also this lawsuit was the sole reason why Paramount and CBS put out these dracionan rules about fan films/fan projects which we have today and which made projects like Star trek Continues impossible today. Thanks Alec Peters, well done, you greedy asshole.
To be honest, I take everything what Alec Peters says with a huge grain of salt, no, not even that, I call that he says utter bullshit! Simple as that!
Vic has been clear about the Axanar issue right from the beginning with Peters' Axanar 20 minute trailer, he stated that this won't end well, which also was the starting point of the long feud between Vic and Alec Peters.

Also MechaRandom42's video about Peters attacking her and her #ISWV, says a lot about him being a vile piece of shit.

Also worth following: Axa monitor, good source to keep up with all the Axanar bullshit from Peters.

 

[I can't imagine]

Welcome to the farms. Mind the tard-cum. It gets everywhere.

The thing that bothers me about this posturing is the repeated use of the word "credible." What does that mean here? Can it simply mean that "yes, he did in fact eat the jellybean, ergo the claim is credible"?

I suppose if they're using a loose enough definition, "credible" could just mean that they placed him in the same general area for some of the times cited, so some of the accusations could hypothetically have happened.

I'd say that couldn't possibly be what they mean, but at this point the sky's the limit in this case.

 

[AnOminous]

Keep in mind that a TCPA isn't a defence. It's more like a statement that "this lawsuit is frivolous for these reasons and therefore we shouldn't be required to defend against it". It's Vic's side complaint which has to pass muster here.

In this case, unlike with the Soye Boye's incessant spamming of defamation, Funimation is accused basically of a single tweet, and two facts in it. There was an investigation. Vic was fired. They don't like harassment. These are all arguably facts and the last is an opinion, which is their strongest argument.

It's always problematic when you're in the position of arguing that otherwise factual statements lead to a false implication. You ultimately need to show that a reasonable audience would read it that way, or at the very least that there's a triable issue of fact as to that and that a reasonable jury would read it that way.

The plaintiff has to put on a showing that the audience of that tweet would in fact have taken it in a defamatory way. This might not be as hard as it sounds since most of the vitriolic and hateful responses to it from other perps in the lawsuit clearly indicate they were taking it that way and using it that way, as vindicating their claims about Vic's monstrosity.

 

[KittyLoaf]

Yeah, reading through these replies, now. Good luck FUNimation, convincing the court that people didn't take your statement to mean your investigation corroborated accusations of sexual misconduct. That's not including your dumb ass VAs (one purportedly involved in said investigation) running their stupid mouths without you correcting the record.

https://twitter.com/FUNimation/status/1095087396209770501

Edit: Nick already in the comments, then:

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

Yeah, reading through these replies, now. Good luck FUNimation, convincing the court that people didn't take your statement to mean your investigation corroborated accusations of sexual misconduct. That's not including your dumb ass VAs (one purportedly involved in said investigation) running their stupid mouths without you correcting the record.

https://twitter.com/FUNimation/status/1095087396209770501

Edit: Nick already in the comments, then: Ver archivo adjunto 824606

Mighty big 'if' there, Kelly. Sooner or later, if Funi, et.al. want to make this stick (and win the case), they're going to have to cough up these people along with affidavits, testimony, etc.

That's what bugs me about this. If you look back to Bill Clinton, names came out and that's why the shit stuck to him so strongly. Paula Jones, Juanita Brodderick, Monica Lewinsky.

 

[OldAmishRenegade]

Why they fired Vic is only relevant in light of their tweet implying improper behaviour by Vic. Had they not made that tweet, they could have fired him for any reason or no reason at all and not be called upon to justify it.

If Monica and Jamie aren't employees/agents since they're just contracted and not Funi's responsibility, then the same was true of Vic. Why make a public statement about him if that's true?

 

[AnOminous]

If Monica and Jamie aren't employees/agents since they're just contracted and not Funi's responsibility, then the same was true of Vic. Why make a public statement about him if that's true?

Because they were acting maliciously in concert with those people not just to stop using Vic as a VA but to destroy his life on top of it, and they just couldn't resist twisting the knife. And now they're going to pay.

 

[wickedlilium]

So anyone found out who this hanleia person Funi is reference? I can only find 2 people, one is from starwars and the other one was made from March 2019, I honestly don't think they are referring to either one of those.

So just wondering but could Ty still get details to the investigation even thought Funi has a TCPA? and if the investigation doesn't follow basic guidelines, does that allow Vic to sue for wrongful termination? considering they fired him by using said investigation.

 

[AnOminous]

So anyone found out who this hanleia person Funi is reference? I can only find 2 people, one is from starwars and the other one was made from March 2019, I honestly don't think they are referring to either one of those.

So just wondering but could Ty still get details to the investigation even thought Funi has a TCPA? and if the investigation doesn't follow basic guidelines, does that allow Vic to sue for wrongful termination? considering they fired him by using said investigation.

He wasn't a salary or hourly employee but a contractor. You generally can't force a company to hire an actor. That's why he isn't suing for wrongful termination, because it isn't really a cause of action he has.