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

Destacado
Reverend dijo:
they are trying to get Vic to be considered a Public Figure. The more they can say the world knows about him the more they can point out that he's not a private individual and therefore Defamation is unprovable.
Presiona para expandir...

They're also trying to establish that but for Nick this lawsuit would not exist, which is an interesting premise to argue and largely irrelevant even if it were true.
 
repentance dijo:
They're also trying to establish that but for Nick this lawsuit would not exist, which is an interesting premise to argue and largely irrelevant even if it were true.
Presiona para expandir...
Which is quickly cut short, once they consider Vic was already searching for legal counsel in private. Whether it was through Ty or another firm, the suit was going to happen.
 
RodgerDodger dijo:
The Judge has already got to be looking at this pack of fools as if they rolled in on the short bus.
Presiona para expandir...
To be fair he is probably considering both side as fools already, it is just that one side happens too look like chimps to us, whereas he probably has more interesting hobbies to attend to than looking at the monstruous abyss that is Twitter.
 
PrinceofAllCucks dijo:
Which is quickly cut short, once they consider Vic was already searching for legal counsel in private. Whether it was through Ty or another firm, the suit was going to happen.
Presiona para expandir...

I believe he had already retained counsel behind the scenes before retaining Ty.
 
Nick has spoken previously about how important his writing skills have been throughout his legal career. Skimming this motion makes me wonder if it was the work of several authors, or one not particularly focused author. With so many attorneys on that side, this could easily be a "too many cooks in the kitchen" situation.

Aside from the technical issues and inconsistencies, it's clear that Toye/Rial (and Funi) are banking on the TCPA. Even with that obvious plan, it feels like their side is acting much reactive and tactical. Vic's side seems to be acting in a strategic matter, although I do wish we could witness BHBH unleashed. Ty's spoken about the similarities between court and war, so it would be great for Vic if things play out as they appear to me.
 
Dixieland Buckaroo dijo:
Nick has spoken previously about how important his writing skills have been throughout his legal career. Skimming this motion makes me wonder if it was the work of several authors, or one not particularly focused author. With so many attorneys on that side, this could easily be a "too many cooks in the kitchen" situation.
Presiona para expandir...

Or in this case, too many cucks in the cage.
 
Do you think this action is likely to get Lemoine, The Furher, sanctioned? I would hate to have money spent by Vic and BHBH to respond to an obviously preposterous motion. I think paying BHBH's fees would do a lot to keep these ridiculous games from repeating. Think hard before you make a motion. Besides, I think it projects weakness. Why are you playing all these games if you have the goods? Make a motion to dismiss or for summary judgement or wait for trial. They have all the evidence they need, right? It seems in these types of cases, it should be the plaintiff that is requesting more discovery. Though like Jon Snow, I know nothing.
 
Última edición:
repentance dijo:
Monica and Ron have asked for a jury trial. I'm not seeing how the issue of whether or not Vic is a public figure gets to be decided by anyone other than that future jury. The judge is not the fact finder in this action.

fwiw, Nick has said on multiple occasions that at most Vic could be considered a limited public figure, but Nick's opinion is no more authoritative than the opinion of anyone on law Twitter.

That they want Ty to stipulate that Vic is a public figure is a good indication that they're not sure they can convince a jury that's the case.
Presiona para expandir...
I actually think the judge here is probably going to make that determination, at least initially.

In order to rule on the TCPA motion, the judge needs to determine whether clear and specific evidence has been provided for each element of the claim. In order to determine that, the judge needs to know whether he's looking for "actual malice", or merely negligence.

As for asking Ty to stipulate to Vic's public figure status, my guess is that it's more likely that Sean asked that because he felt that the conclusion was largely foregone. I don't know if many lawyers ask to stipulate pivotal questions that they're unlikely to win precisely because it would signal that they think they're weak in that area.
 
10SorrowfulObject dijo:
As for asking Ty to stipulate to Vic's public figure status, my guess is that it's more likely that Sean asked that because he felt that the conclusion was largely foregone. I don't know if many lawyers ask to stipulate pivotal questions that they're unlikely to win precisely because it would signal that they think they're weak in that area.
Presiona para expandir...

These buffoons are basically asking Vic to cut his own throat and act amazed the response is "lol no fuck off."
 
10SorrowfulObject dijo:
I actually think the judge here is probably going to make that determination, at least initially.

In order to rule on the TCPA motion, the judge needs to determine whether clear and specific evidence has been provided for each element of the claim. In order to determine that, the judge needs to know whether he's looking for "actual malice", or merely negligence.

As for asking Ty to stipulate to Vic's public figure status, my guess is that it's more likely that Sean asked that because he felt that the conclusion was largely foregone. I don't know if many lawyers ask to stipulate pivotal questions that they're unlikely to win precisely because it would signal that they think they're weak in that area.
Presiona para expandir...

When making a determination for TCPA or similar summary motion to dismiss the Judicial procedure is generally to assume or interpret all such matters of fact under contention in the way most favorable to the Plaintiff. At least for determining validity of causes of action.
 
HOLY SHIT. HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Nick is playing Ron Toye's deposition right now. You have to watch this:

Ty Beard's 2nd question to Ron: "Are you a pedophile?"
I'm dying. This is too fucking funny.
 
Whether Vic is a public figure isn’t a fact question for the jury, but an issue of law for Judge Chupp to decide. WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 SW 2d 568 (1998) [“The question of public-figure status is one of constitutional law for courts to decide.”) citing Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 88, 86 S.Ct. 669, 15 L.Ed.2d 597 (1966);  Trotter v. Jack Anderson Enters., Inc., 818 F.2d 431, 433 (5th Cir.1987).



In deciding, the Court will likely apply a three-part test to determine whether Vic is a limited-purpose public figure:

(1) the controversy at issue must be public both in the sense that people are discussing it and people other than the immediate participants in the controversy are likely to feel the impact of its resolution;

(2) the plaintiff must have more than a trivial or tangential role in the controversy; and

(3) the alleged defamation must be germane to the plaintiff's participation in the controversy.
Presiona para expandir...

If he finds the above three factors true, Judge Chubb will hold that Vic is a limited purpose public figure. I do not see any legitimate argument that Vic is an all-purpose public figure. But if you read the Texas Supreme Court case I cite above; you’ll find a reporter who covered the Branch Davidian issue in Waco was found to be a limited purpose public figure. I was in Austin when the raid on the Branch Davidian Compound went down and watched it on CNN (the Cable News King back then).



I know some people have a different opinion, but the three cases I found and reviewed where an anti-SLAPP had been attempted to effectively quash a third-party subpoena have failed. Admittedly, these are cases in other jurisdictions (D.C. and Virginia). But I believe the status of Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP statute is ambiguous due to being found unconstitutional by that state’s Supreme Court. If the Texas court permits the subpoena, I think a Minnesota court will honor it. But the court should in my opinion 100% refuse to grant the motion to take this discovery.



Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 27.006(b) is not ambiguous when it states: “On a motion by a party or on the court's own motion and on a showing of good cause, the court may allow specified and limited discovery relevant to the motion.” This discovery is not relevant to Funimation’s motion. There is no anti-SLAPP motion on file by Monica or Ron. Monica and Ron are not a party to the motion on file and I do not believe they have standing to seek discovery while the motion is pending. And Nick is right. The TCPA stays all discovery in the action, not just discovery between the parties to the motion. Think about it. The reason for the discovery stay is to protect a defendant facing a frivolous motion from having to spend a lot of attorney fees while the anti-SLAPP motion is decided. When discovery is going on, an attorney can’t just ignore the deposition or other discovery. He has to analyze and possibly participate to protect the rights of his client even if it’s just a third-party deposition being taken by another defendant.
 
Última edición:
Skeptical Idiot dijo:
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 27.006(b) is not ambiguous when it states: “On a motion by a party or on the court's own motion and on a showing of good cause, the court may allow specified and limited discovery relevant to the motion.” This discovery is not relevant to Funimation’s motion. There is no anti-SLAPP motion on file by Monica or Ron. Monica and Ron are not a party to the motion on file and I do not believe they have standing to seek discovery while the motion is pending. And Nick is right. The TCPA stays all discovery in the action, not just discovery between the parties to the motion. Think about it. The reason for the discovery stay is to protect a defendant facing a frivolous motion from having to spend a lot of attorney fees while the anti-SLAPP motion is decided. When discovery is going on, an attorney can’t just ignore the deposition or other discovery. He has to analyze and possibly participate to protect the rights of his client even if it’s just a third-party deposition being taken by another defendant.
Presiona para expandir...

I agree with all this analysis.

Courts have a lot of power to control their dockets and having some case with four defendants all on different discovery schedules would be ridiculous and inefficient for everyone involved.

I do not think they can piggyback on Funimation's TCPA motion for discovery completely unrelated to that motion since they do not have standing to do so. They need to file their own motion. Or fuck off.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo