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

[Immaculate Ape]

It has nothing to do with changing their opinions more discouraging them fro repeating the defamation through fear of them being on the chopping block next if they don't stop.

They don't care.

Look at Rial and Toye's blatant smug attitudes in the face of the impending lawsuit. Then look at how their attitudes haven't changed, only reinforced their behavior as the lawsuit continues.

There is no scaring these people, because they don't feel any responsibility. They don't operate within the rules of reality, they operate in clown-world logic, where everything is someone else's fault.

 

[AnOminous]

I think Ty could have done better, I think Lemoine did worse.

Lemoine's PowerPoint was a joke, and his 230 argument was essentially laughed at.

Was that because it was stupid or because the judge doesn't even know what § 230 is or why it would apply?

 

[TherapyMan]

In regards to proving actual damages for Tortious Interference, is it not enough to establish the incidental damages arising out of Slatosch's initial breach? See Slatosch Depo 14. Slatosch states that Vic had to involve counsel, incur legal expenses, as well as additional expenses to compensate for Slatosch's breach that was incited by Toye.

Assuming that Long-time Lurker is right and references to the original agreement and contents of other agreements were excluded as hearsay or excluded under the best evidence rule, it seems that the failure of Ty to enter into evidence Vic's new contract and the expenses related to those contracts proved fatal for the TI claim. Why didn't he submit those documents? If there was a breach and a new contract had to be made for Vic, why that contract wasn't included in the pleadings, along with evidence of other expenses? Perhaps there's something I'm missing about the rules of Civil Procedure here, but this seems like such an easily curable defect in the pleadings that I can't imagine why it wasn't addressed.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

I posted this in the main WW thread, but I feel this is more relevant here. Attached below is a visual spreadsheet of all the 2019 judicial reference scores for civil judges in Texas, Chupp included, based on various criteria. I'm not too sure as to who submitted the scores for the evaluations, but it's likely a mixture of lawyers and associated court personnel who have worked with the judge in question on trials. The link below contains the spreadsheet itself:

Filebin :: bin hw5defcnhl56i15d

Upload files and make them available for your friends. Think of it as Pastebin for files. Registration is not required. Large files are supported.

filebin.net

While the original document this spreadsheet was based on was posted a few days ago, its format is honestly pretty shit for getting any sort of meaningful data for just one judge, let alone comparing them, so I reformatted it into something actually serviceable.

Ver archivo adjunto 928042

I like Judge David Evans's scores, sounds like he would've been great for this shitshow.

 

[变性黑鬼]

In regards to proving actual damages for Tortious Interference, is it not enough to establish the incidental damages arising out of Slatosch's initial breach? See Slatosch Depo 14. Slatosch states that Vic had to involve counsel, incur legal expenses, as well as additional expenses to compensate for Slatosch's breach that was incited by Toye.

Assuming that Long-time Lurker is right and references to the original agreement and contents of other agreements were excluded as hearsay or excluded under the best evidence rule, it seems that the failure of Ty to enter into evidence Vic's new contract and the expenses related to those contracts proved fatal for the TI claim. Why didn't he submit those documents? If there was a breach and a new contract had to be made for Vic, why that contract wasn't included in the pleadings, along with evidence of other expenses? Perhaps there's something I'm missing about the rules of Civil Procedure here, but this seems like such an easily curable defect in the pleadings that I can't imagine why it wasn't addressed.

Yes, this appears to be exactly where BHBH fucked up. Their tardy filing, technical failures, and failure to adequately make the oral argument meant that the judge did not see an avenue to award damages for TI and he wanted any shaky claims off the table.

This has me hopeful:

There is a history of Chupp reversing his decisions on later reconsideration requests (not just through appeal court)

If BHBH can make a concise case for TI in a reconsideration request, they could rebuild and regroup.

This is literally coming from the same fingertips that tweeted out all of the TCPAs would be immediately dismissed and Ty would be sanctioned on the spot.

Typical of them to try to claim they were right all along now that they have hindsight. "We tried to tell Ty and Nick," yeah, well, nobody reads The Threadnaught, sorry. Does anybody here read it? I doubt even the Lawsplaining Discord people have the patience or the time to put up with a bunch of dudes trying to explain why the judge will definitely have Ty publically pantsed and spanked, then sent to sensitivity training.

Show me a tweet that says "they don't have TI but they do have conspiracy and defamation" and I'll go eat a cock.

I doubt any of them will even admit that the Lawsplaining streams have utterly demolished KickVic on the PR front. People saying that Vic is now unemployable are wrong. Good people are happy to help a man falsely accused of molesting children, but they would never employ a sexual predator. Even if the TCPA is a total defeat (which it isn't yet), this lawsuit will have been worth it just to show Vic's innocence and trash the reputation of Funimation and associated creeps.

 

[Garm]

That won't be resolved by this court. That gets resolved by exposing that the accusers are lying scumbags.

If all you're concerned about is Vic's innocence, don't bother following this case, because you're expecting the court to remedy something it absolutely has no jurisdiction over.

I think the court can help Vic get his reputation back.

You are correct that there will always and forever be pockets of people online that will believe Vic is a predator. The thing that destroyed his ability to work (from a public perspective) is that Monica and Funimation came out against him.

You get those two to recant and KickVic withers back down to crazy cat ladies bitter about their... Fujioshi or Yaoi porn. Whatever.

On the private side, you would have to take down Sabat and his influence with conventions. We aren't there yet.

The primary point is credibility. You destroy Monica and Funimations credibility, Vic becomes employable again.

 

[Long-time Lurker]

Was that because it was stupid or because the judge doesn't even know what § 230 is or why it would apply?

It was stupid and everyone knew it. I had to cover my mouth for that one.

Might as well have said, "oh right, you're the guy who mentioned he had brain damage."

 

[Pepper Jack]

My total takeaway from this is that everyone involved dropped the ball. The judge did, the lawyers did, just... everyone. The only one who comes out of this smelling of roses is Marchi's lawyer.

Ty got sucked into the autism vortex and it cost him. My recommendation to Ty is to spend less time on streams dunking on T. Greg and spend more time nailing this case.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

So to those more versed in TCPA or just generally informed on the matter:

Was Ty supposed to be able to produce new information at the hearing? Nick's comment about "no response even needs to be filed for TCPA, they still have oral arguments" came across as meaning new information could still be introduced.

That specific line contributed to my surprise about the 2nd amended pleading being thrown out.

IANAL, but my understanding is that you are pretty much NEVER supposed to be suddenly introducing new facts during oral arguments. Discovery is the process through which the plaintiffs and the defendants put forward the set of facts they are proposing (source). I believe it is possible in most places to add additional charges later on, if you find new facts during discovery that support new charges. I cannot stress enough how foolish it is to include the additional charges if you don't have a clear and specific prima facie case for them. Because, even if you eventually find new information after discovery, your client is still on the hook for all reasonable attorneys' fees based on those charges. So, for every TCPA that was granted that Ty is unable to convince the appeals court to overturn, Vic will owe the defendants for the cost of their lawyers time spent on those charge (and potential fees). This will also include all additional costs for the appeal.

Another problem is that appeals are generally unsuccessful. Not always, but in an overwhelming majority of cases. I think it's like 85% of civil cases don't get overturned. And that's for all cases, including those that get to trial, which this one hasn't even had a single charge make it to successfully yet. Even worse is that, afaik, Ty cannot present new evidence at the appeal. He has to appeal with the same set of establish facts that was presented to Chupp in his current filings, and then argue Chupp made a serious mistake in his interpretation of the facts.

A competent lawyer probably would have put forward charges based on what they knew they could make it past TCPA and summary judgment with, and then used discovery to find the additional facts they needed for new charges.

 

[Gehenna]

IANAL, but my understanding is that you are pretty much NEVER supposed to be suddenly introducing new facts during oral arguments. Discovery is the process through which the plaintiffs and the defendants put forward the set of facts they are proposing (source). I believe it is possible in most places to add additional charges later on, if you find new facts during discovery that support new charges. I cannot stress enough how foolish it is to include the additional charges if you don't have a clear and specific prima facie case for them. Because, even if you eventually find new information after discovery, your client is still on the hook for all reasonable attorneys' fees based on those charges. So, for every TCPA that was granted that Ty is unable to convince the appeals court to overturn, Vic will owe the defendants for the cost of their lawyers time spent on those charge (and potential fees). This will also include all additional costs for the appeal.

Another problem is that appeals are generally unsuccessful. Not always, but in an overwhelming majority of cases. I think it's like 85% of civil cases don't get overturned. And that's for all cases, including those that get to trial, which this one hasn't even had a single charge make it to successfully yet. Even worse is that, afaik, Ty cannot present new evidence at the appeal. He has to appeal with the same set of establish facts that was presented to Chupp in his current filings, and then argue Chupp made a serious mistake in his interpretation of the facts.

A competent lawyer probably would have put forward charges based on what they knew they could make it past TCPA and summary judgment with, and then used discovery to find the additional facts they needed for new charges.

I do believe that case can be made. Chupp did just ignore/was ignorant of things from the filings, demanded a higher level of evidentiary burden than the TCPA allows, and Chupp did pretty flippantly dismiss it without due concern. This is why I said EVERYONE dropped the ball, since Chupp definitely made a very appealable case, even if he had legitimate reasons to think it was dismissable.
Ty did not help things either, with his unclear answers and almost total lack of of preparedness. not to mention he seemed to go in expecting one type of judge, got another, and seemed to be absolutely unable to pivot on the spot.

This case is an infuriating example where if either party had been on the ball, a lot of headache would have been avoided. yet both dropped the damn thing and now you got a mess.
My hope here is that given a few days, Ty can craft the request to reconsider to Chupp who will take it more favorably with less filings on his table and a proper index of contents so he can go through the forest of paperwork faster. Assuming they get on the same page, i'd predict Marchi stays out (The case against her, while stronger with the amended petition, just requires too much outside context for a second glance to pull her back in), the TI goes back to full, and all other charges to more or less slide back into place.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

I would argue against that.

TI and Conspiracy are going to be almost impossible to prove with the facts Ty currently has. I am seriously doubtful that an appeal could overrule those, and that means that Vic is almost certainly on the hook for attorney's fees and possibly sanctions for those. This is because TI and Conspiracy both require an underlying tort (TI: must prove "The interference is inappropriate" source; Conspiracy: “depends on participation in some underlying tort” source), which I think we have to assume is defamation. So, you have to both prove all the elements of defamation, and prove all the additional elements of TI and Conspiracy. He also has to do this with only the evidence he has already submitted.

We've already seen he did not submit clear and specific evidence for damages for any of the TI claims. The lack of damages also will affect the Conspiracy charges. Here is the list of elements Ty would need to have already filed clear and specific elements for each defendant to stick a conspiracy charge (source):
(1) the defendant and another person acted together
(2) they acted to accomplish an object (an unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose by unlawful means)
(3) they had a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action
(4) they committed one or more unlawful acts
(5) the plaintiff suffered damages as the proximate result of the unlawful acts

Ty might be able to prove element 2. But, two people both doing the same thing is not enough to prove conspiracy. He needed to have already put forward evidence of damages and evidence of them meeting to agree on the action. If either of those is missing from Ty's filings, he will not be able to overcome the TCPA on the conspiracy charge, and Vic will owe the defendant's costs (and potentially additional sanctions).

If you can point to where in the filings he provides evidence of damages and of a meeting of the minds, then he has a chance.

 

[Gehenna]

I would argue against that.

TI and Conspiracy are going to be almost impossible to prove with the facts Ty currently has. I am seriously doubtful that an appeal could overrule those, and that means that Vic is almost certainly on the hook for attorney's fees and possibly sanctions for those. This is because TI and Conspiracy both require an underlying tort (TI: must prove "The interference is inappropriate" source; Conspiracy: “depends on participation in some underlying tort” source), which I think we have to assume is defamation. So, you have to both prove all the elements of defamation, and prove all the additional elements of TI and Conspiracy. He also has to do this with only the evidence he has already submitted.

We've already seen he did not submit clear and specific evidence for damages for any of the TI claims. The lack of damages also will affect the Conspiracy charges. Here is the list of elements Ty would need to have already filed clear and specific elements for each defendant to stick a conspiracy charge (source):
(1) the defendant and another person acted together
(2) they acted to accomplish an object (an unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose by unlawful means)
(3) they had a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action
(4) they committed one or more unlawful acts
(5) the plaintiff suffered damages as the proximate result of the unlawful acts

Ty might be able to prove element 2. But, two people both doing the same thing is not enough to prove conspiracy. He needed to have already put forward evidence of damages and evidence of them meeting to agree on the action. If either of those is missing from Ty's filings, he will not be able to overcome the TCPA on the conspiracy charge, and Vic will owe the defendant's costs (and potentially additional sanctions).

If you can point to where in the filings he provides evidence of damages and of a meeting of the minds, then he has a chance.

The thing is... he did post evidence of the damages. The renewed contract with additional cost stipulations is damages. What he did not have was an exact number on hand in the trial.

As to the conspiracy claim, again we have a basic prima facie case from what was posted in the initial pleading that:
There was an investigation
Funimation terminated Vic's contract
Everyone is in direct contact with eachother
They committed Tortious Interference (I cannot see how this possibly does not get appealed or put back on in review, it being dismissed is mind boggling)
And see above for damages.

The only sketchy part is that they actively worked together, something the allowed in Affidavits DO cover to a degree that should be sufficient for TCPA. And, if you are going to die on the hill of "But damages", then well... again, it does cover it, just not in a specific number. Here is the thing, from my (Admittedly non lawyer but thorough researched) knowledge, specific damages are -not- required at this stage, only a presenting of a case that YES there were damages. Now, I fully believe Ty SHOULD have presented a number because it would make it iron tight, but specific damages aren't required, only that damages can be established to HAVE occurred.

Ty got sucked into the autism vortex and it cost him. My recommendation to Ty is to spend less time on streams dunking on T. Greg and spend more time nailing this case.

Ty either sniffed his own farts or straight up paid no attention. I avoided commenting on the filings because I wasn't sure how they were supposed to look or how standard procedure was supposed to happen. Between my own research, the end result, and reading a bit om both sides my conclusion is that he really should have presented every single fact from the start instead of drip feeding it like he did. He tried to play a wargame and to outplay his opposition and it turned out his plan was smarter than he was. My opinion of him as I understood more has actually lowered a fair bit.

 

[Imperial Agent]

Was that because it was stupid or because the judge doesn't even know what § 230 is or why it would apply?

A bit of both. The judge clearly found the argument unconvincing, but he also didn't even seem willing to entertain it. That happened several times.

The judge really didn't care about any arguments that didn't make plain sense to him.

 

[Kosher Dill]

Do you think it's because Ty is old and tired?

I actually wonder how many slip-ups happened because Ty was just tired out from either appearing on or watching Nick's absurdly late and long show.

 

[Gehenna]

A bit of both. The judge clearly found the argument unconvincing, but he also didn't even seem willing to entertain it. That happened several times.

The judge really didn't care about any arguments that didn't make plain sense to him.

Which is a problem, as it is the job of the lawyers to remind the judge of the law, so any judge needs to be willing to listen to those arguments. Dismissing an arguement out of hand, especially one that is black and white, would seem appealable to me, though one of the resident lawyers could say for sure.

Edit: This being said, Ty REALLY should have had stuff prepared and in order to make those points of law easily digestible by the judge. Again, this goes back to what i said about if EITHER side of this had been on the ball, it could have been avoided.

I actually wonder how many slip-ups happened because Ty was just tired out from either appearing on or watching Nick's absurdly late and long show.

I doubt that many, purely because most of the grunt work should have been done by the junior partners. I'd propose that the biggest issue was him being too smart for his own good. Trying to play a wargame, and it coming back to bite his ass.

 

[Imperial Agent]

IANAL, but my understanding is that you are pretty much NEVER supposed to be suddenly introducing new facts during oral arguments. Discovery is the process through which the plaintiffs and the defendants put forward the set of facts they are proposing (source). I believe it is possible in most places to add additional charges later on, if you find new facts during discovery that support new charges. I cannot stress enough how foolish it is to include the additional charges if you don't have a clear and specific prima facie case for them. Because, even if you eventually find new information after discovery, your client is still on the hook for all reasonable attorneys' fees based on those charges. So, for every TCPA that was granted that Ty is unable to convince the appeals court to overturn, Vic will owe the defendants for the cost of their lawyers time spent on those charge (and potential fees). This will also include all additional costs for the appeal.

Another problem is that appeals are generally unsuccessful. Not always, but in an overwhelming majority of cases. I think it's like 85% of civil cases don't get overturned. And that's for all cases, including those that get to trial, which this one hasn't even had a single charge make it to successfully yet. Even worse is that, afaik, Ty cannot present new evidence at the appeal. He has to appeal with the same set of establish facts that was presented to Chupp in his current filings, and then argue Chupp made a serious mistake in his interpretation of the facts.

A competent lawyer probably would have put forward charges based on what they knew they could make it past TCPA and summary judgment with, and then used discovery to find the additional facts they needed for new charges.

I think you misunderstood the question.

No new “charges” were attempted. The question was about supplemental information and arguments, such as what was denied in the 2nd amended pleading.

 

[I can't imagine]

The thing is... he did post evidence of the damages. The renewed contract with additional cost stipulations is damages. What he did not have was an exact number on hand in the trial.

I can honestly see both perspectives on this one. Basically, Ty and BHBH were trying to get evidence that TI occurred on a whole bunch of other cons by using evidence of an incident at a con that was lesser in terms of damage. If they don't even have a vague estimate of how much damage was done by that incident, it can suggest that they don't consider that incident that important at all, and are merely using it as a gateway to find proof of the "real" damage.

Now, is that, technically speaking, allowed under the rules? Yeah. But a judge can also read that you're really just using it as a path to open discovery.

So, I agree that if we're following the rules strictly, TI should be allowed. However, judges are allowed to use some degree of discretion. The question at that point becomes, "is this an abuse of discretion?" Which, simply put, is something the appeals court would decide. Indications would suggest that the 2nd Court of Appeals may be receptive to the argument, but you never know when you're dealing with arguments like that.

 

[AnOminous]

I think you misunderstood the question.

No new “charges” were attempted. The question was about supplemental information and arguments, such as what was denied in the 2nd amended pleading.

The only "new" information was unsworn declarations in a document the judge didn't consider. There's no question of there being any surprise from them since they were identical to the information in the original TCPA reply, just with some deficiencies in "form," (to be charitable) remedied.

However, those affidavits were withdrawn and not in evidence. And if the declarations were also not in evidence, much of the plaintiff's prima facie case was not even in evidence.

If there's an appeal that's going to be an issue.

So that mistake has really complicated an appeals court getting to the legal issues Chupp pretty much screwed the pooch on. If he would have had to come to the same result anyway, it might not matter now. I honestly can't figure out for sure what was even in evidence and what wasn't.

If he was relying on the affidavits in the original opposition to the TCPA, those were withdrawn and therefore shouldn't have been considered. If he was relying on the unsworn declarations in the (Proposed) Second Amended Petition, he supposedly rejected that late filing and didn't consider it, but claimed to be considering it anyway.

So much for the TCPA's "purpose is to identify and summarily dispose of lawsuits designed only to chill First Amendment rights, not to dismiss meritorious lawsuits." It seems to be really good at the latter.

Also if the judge is deciding issues that you have a right to a jury trial on, that's just plain unconstitutional, like the other state anti-SLAPP statutes that have been thrown out as unconstitutional, including Minnesota's where Nick is (the other is Washington State).

 

[mindlessobserver]

Could these anti-slapp laws violate the 1st amendments right to petition the government for grievances?

 

[WarJams]

Could these anti-slapp laws violate the 1st amendments right to petition the government for grievances?

Other states or courts have stricken them from the books for various constitutional reasons when challenged in court. Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Washington off the top of my head.