- Registrado
- 23 de Mayo, 2019
Victor Mignogna v. Funimation Productions, LLC, et al. (2019) - Vic's lawsuit against Funimation, VAs, and others, for over a million dollars.
- Iniciador del tema 5t3n0g0ph3r
- Fecha de inicio
-
🚨 On-and-off DDoS attacks. (July 25th: On-going connection issues.)
🧅 Tor is stable: https://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion/ -
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Registrado
- 28 de Feb, 2019
I'm getting Tumblr "that's not the canonical negro skin tone you RACIST" flashbacks.
Padoru
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 14 de Jun, 2019
What YOU showed was A) His Legendary Super Saiyan state and B) him in the middle of progressing into super saiyan during his first Movie. He never goes normal Super Saiyan until second Coming and later in the DBS Broly Movie, where again Yellow first.
- Registrado
- 4 de Feb, 2018
Honey that's what Sean Schemmel does every damn day. Except he's a little punk ass bitch.
- Registrado
- 6 de Ene, 2019
i regret making a dbz joke, anime is autistic
Notspecialdude
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 28 de Mayo, 2019
Its possible that Funimation wanted to pull a Disney and repeat the James Gunn incident with vic. (i.e, "fire" the controversial employee while the iron was hot and "rehire" when it dies down.) However, I can't definitively say for certain since the actions of the other defendants and outside parties like Marzgurl wouldn't have been so biting with their attacks.
I think the more likely option is that funimation wanted to be rid of Vic and jumped on the first opportunity to do so, but didn't pay to much attention while doing so. Based on how Monica and the other VA's acted throughout this whole debacle; its safe to assume that the inner circle disliked Vic for political and religious reasons, but didn't want to risk the backlash of firing him without a just reason. So when Rape accusations came up, it was a gift on a silver platter. This is, of course all assumption and I am most likely very wrong.
Its just as likely that they bought Moronica's shtick whole cloth and believed her on Vic's guilt only to be blindsided by what this had turned into. Laughable, and highly unlikely, but possible.
wickedlilium
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 12 de Abr, 2019
This raises the question, what actions are justifiable under their own clause, those who help spread the flames or someone like Vic who ended up getting dragged into all of this and it was only ALLEGATIONS, not completely confirmed facts.
General Relativity QM
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 7 de Jul, 2019
I think it is perhaps more likely than you suggest in the end. However, Funimation's defense might be that they fulfilled their last contract with Vic and have simply chosen not to renew the contract or to create a new one. They didn't terminate Vic per se, but exercised their option to not renew. This seems like it is post-hoc justification, and I think it would be evidence of TI for the other defendants since they would be admitting there was a potential contract that was was not pursued but for the actions of the other defendants.
If Vic suddenly gets some contractual obligations honored by Funimation due to oversight, it would definitely be a sign that Funimation realizes that they are in breach and are retroactively trying to correct their mistakes. Perhaps, it could be argued that this is circumstantial evidence of common malice since they should have been using their contract with Vic. Also, since they are treating Vic as an employee by firing him publicly rather than allowing the contract to expire, it might be evidence that independent contractors are agents/employees for all intents and purposes.
I think limited discovery on Funimation is an essential step in responding to the TCPA. Funimation has its internal communications and accounting for the situation. If Vic is a limited purpose public figure and actual malice must be shown prima facie, I am not sure how BHBH does this without limited discovery. Malice is a state of mind, and Funimation has more information on their state of mind than anyone else.
Law experts:
1. In granting all inferences to the plaintiff, would this include the most favorable interpretation of Vic's public figure status? Would BHBH have to make 3 prima facie cases for each state, wait for the court to rule on his status, or give him the most favorable status for the TCPA, which is about frivolity (a question of public status is not important in determining frivolity)?
2. If actual malice is required to be shown in TCPA, in general, how would one do that without some discovery?
3. If multiple parties make a TCPA motion, where A says that B is the responsible party and B says A is the responsibile party where A and B are both defending against a suit brought by C, would this be sufficient to make a prima facie case since all parties agree at least one of the defendants is responsible, therefore there is no frivolity in the suit?
4. Can discovery abuse be used as grounds to get discovery that was required before the TCPA discovery stay? Can discovery abuse be used as circumstantial evidence of common malice in a suit where actual malice is a required element?
edit: typos
If Vic suddenly gets some contractual obligations honored by Funimation due to oversight, it would definitely be a sign that Funimation realizes that they are in breach and are retroactively trying to correct their mistakes. Perhaps, it could be argued that this is circumstantial evidence of common malice since they should have been using their contract with Vic. Also, since they are treating Vic as an employee by firing him publicly rather than allowing the contract to expire, it might be evidence that independent contractors are agents/employees for all intents and purposes.
I think limited discovery on Funimation is an essential step in responding to the TCPA. Funimation has its internal communications and accounting for the situation. If Vic is a limited purpose public figure and actual malice must be shown prima facie, I am not sure how BHBH does this without limited discovery. Malice is a state of mind, and Funimation has more information on their state of mind than anyone else.
Law experts:
1. In granting all inferences to the plaintiff, would this include the most favorable interpretation of Vic's public figure status? Would BHBH have to make 3 prima facie cases for each state, wait for the court to rule on his status, or give him the most favorable status for the TCPA, which is about frivolity (a question of public status is not important in determining frivolity)?
2. If actual malice is required to be shown in TCPA, in general, how would one do that without some discovery?
3. If multiple parties make a TCPA motion, where A says that B is the responsible party and B says A is the responsibile party where A and B are both defending against a suit brought by C, would this be sufficient to make a prima facie case since all parties agree at least one of the defendants is responsible, therefore there is no frivolity in the suit?
4. Can discovery abuse be used as grounds to get discovery that was required before the TCPA discovery stay? Can discovery abuse be used as circumstantial evidence of common malice in a suit where actual malice is a required element?
edit: typos
Última edición:
quickthrowaway
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 26 de Feb, 2019
Except Vic was already recording Morose Mononokean and was replaced as the anime was still being dubbed.
So that argument kinda flies out the window.
General Relativity QM
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 7 de Jul, 2019
Good point, but to devil's advocate a bit:
Does the contract state that they can't recast the role as long as they honor the rest of the contract?
I imagine there has to be provision that allows recasting at least temporarily. Didn't Monica or someone get recast for a single episode due to sickness or something? So, perhaps a recast isn't an indication per se that they broke the contract.
I think they broke the contract inappropriately, and I wonder if this makes VAs employees if Funimation can unilaterally break the contract at will.
It will be interesting to see if Funimation has (or will) flip-flop on his contract status. Obviously, I don't know the details of his contract to be clear.
AnOminous
IS THIS DIVINE INTELLECT? OR IS IT NIGGERLICIOUS?
Retired Staff
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 28 de Dic, 2014
They're not actually being sued for breach of contract. An interesting thing about the TI cause of action in Texas is the actual termination of the contract need not be a wrongful act and TI can exist even if the contract expressly allows it to be canceled by the party who did so, and even if they had already decided to terminate it, so long as the actual termination has not yet occurred and up until the instant it does.
General Relativity QM
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 7 de Jul, 2019
Very true. I'm still curious if breach of contract can be used to show malice if malice is a required element of defamation due to Vic being a public figure or a limited purpose public figure.
Loose Handle
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 4 de Jul, 2019
Everything that's admissible can also technically be used to show malice. Malice is a state of mind. Barring someone being exceptional enough to write down "I know this is all a lie but I want to destroy Vic" (which, hey, at this point, wouldn't be surprised if THAT shows up), how do you show state of mind? Well, look at what they do. The question is, how much weight is the jury going to put on it? By itself, not much. But, throw in the games with removal from credits, the negligence in reigning in their obvious agents, the twitter post, the scales start to lean.
- Registrado
- 3 de Feb, 2013
Well, if you watched the movie you'd know how to take care of him.
... and why the Funimation office is full of people who look like failed fusions.
Jub-Jub
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 8 de Jul, 2018
Along with Quickthrowaways answer, They've told the court in the affidavit that they terminated for cause.
We've only seen that small snippet of the contract, but I'm willing to bet at this point that Funimation fucked up in other parts regarding their responsibilities too. I'd show the broken contract, the fact that they put out any statement when they didn't need to, that their investigation leaked like a sieve and everyone at funimation and their dog seemed to "know" exactly what was in it, no contradictory statements to any of those employees talking about how investigation proved Vic man bad, removing him from the special features, removing his name from the cast list and creating a new Vic Mignogna credit when people demanded they rectify the issue.
Última edición:
Sketcher
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 9 de Jun, 2019
AnOminous, seriously, thanks for all your informative (and generally entertaining) commentary. It is appreciated.
- Registrado
- 6 de Jul, 2019
A few questions:
-Since there was an investigation per the TCPA, there has to be a report of the investigation, right? Why wasn't the report part of their evidence? If memory serves, the investigation has to be kept in a investigation specific file (not the persons main employee record,) just in case such harassment goes to trial. In the US, they have to keep that investigation file for a while. It would be real easy to make the TCPA go through if the file was part of the evidence. Unless they didn't do it, and there was collusion and malice. *pikachu shock face*
-Again if memory serves me, there must be a formal letter that they are being investigated produced by HR, or a letter saying a complaint was filed given to the accused as soon as possible after the complaint is filed. There also has to be a formal letter showing the results of the investigation. Both have to be served to the person accused in a fashion they can present evidence to the investigation, and they have the right to bring in an attorney. The letters have to be signed by the person accused so they acknowledge the investigation and results. Where is the paper trail?
I ponder this as someone who had to file paperwork for actual harassment, and they tried to metoo me. It is an extensive paperwork trail that involves a lot of US Federal laws to comply too, even if they're a contract worker.
Funimation could easily seal the TCPA by putting the letters and investigation file into their evidence, considering how much they could be on the hook for. If there is no paperwork, then either their HR is shit (and not in compliance with US law,) or they are fucking lying like cheap rugs.
Place your bets, folks.
If I missed the discussion of this, or if my memory is borking out on me, please let me know.
-Since there was an investigation per the TCPA, there has to be a report of the investigation, right? Why wasn't the report part of their evidence? If memory serves, the investigation has to be kept in a investigation specific file (not the persons main employee record,) just in case such harassment goes to trial. In the US, they have to keep that investigation file for a while. It would be real easy to make the TCPA go through if the file was part of the evidence. Unless they didn't do it, and there was collusion and malice. *pikachu shock face*
-Again if memory serves me, there must be a formal letter that they are being investigated produced by HR, or a letter saying a complaint was filed given to the accused as soon as possible after the complaint is filed. There also has to be a formal letter showing the results of the investigation. Both have to be served to the person accused in a fashion they can present evidence to the investigation, and they have the right to bring in an attorney. The letters have to be signed by the person accused so they acknowledge the investigation and results. Where is the paper trail?
I ponder this as someone who had to file paperwork for actual harassment, and they tried to metoo me. It is an extensive paperwork trail that involves a lot of US Federal laws to comply too, even if they're a contract worker.
Funimation could easily seal the TCPA by putting the letters and investigation file into their evidence, considering how much they could be on the hook for. If there is no paperwork, then either their HR is shit (and not in compliance with US law,) or they are fucking lying like cheap rugs.
Place your bets, folks.
If I missed the discussion of this, or if my memory is borking out on me, please let me know.
- Registrado
- 3 de Jul, 2019
From what Nick has hinted at, Vic apparently never got a severance notice (pink slip) for Cause. Funi practically terminated him without any paperwork AND they terminated him in the middle of his contract.
kadoink
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 29 de Mayo, 2019
Bob..I hate to tell you this..but your memory IS borking. You aren't my uncle.
Seriously though, Vic was fired without any paperwork it seems. Nick implied this technically could mean that they didn't fire him at all if no paperwork was fired which I think might lead to a contract violation. But Nick only implied this and didn't elaborate any further on it. Most likely for legal reasons, but it could have also just been for speculatory reasons too.