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

[NotoriousD]

I cannot remember the last time I saw someone so sure of something in spite of all the evidence.

I can.

Infighting aside, I know jack and shit about law still but this has been annoying to discover because even I can see how airtight this should be. Is the judge being biased towards Ty and has the opposing lawyer been shit on like this so far even though he filed late(iirc)?

I really hope Ty files whatever he needs to to rectify this because that was a surefire case and the judge just threw it into a trashcan?

 

[I can't imagine]

This all makes more sense if you believe DinkyCowSow is simply repeating what Chubbs said. Chubbs denied the TI despite a statement from the con runner and the person interfering admitting to it and claiming they're gonna do it with other conventions. Therefore Sow will deny it. Chubbs says that there are no contracts despite Ty having the Kamehacon one and saying others were oral contracts. Therefore Sow says there aren't any contracts.

I mean, I guess if you wanna go a certain way with your logic, it can almost make sense. The judge's ruling on the evidence is the opinion of the court. If he rules that the evidence was inadequate to support the claim, then it's not totally wrong to say that the evidence was inadequate. Strictly speaking, it doesn't matter if it's the right decision or wrong decision, it's still the court's opinion.

Of course, this entirely ignores the fundamental concept of appeals as remedy to judicial errors, or, in fact, the concept that judicial errors can exist at all. It only really survives as a premise if you work off the assumption that the judge is infallible. And, no matter what, repeating it dozens of times isn't really going to make your argument sound more convincing.

 

[Long-time Lurker]

Perhaps I am simply too charitable or clueless. @DinkyCowSow has actually clarified some points in law that I was unsure of - or at least, forced me to look them up for a clearer picture.

Alas, these points are useful in a vacuum, but not applicable to the case when viewing all the evidence. I can see a prima facie argument for each specific person and cause of action. Most of them seem to be in the pleadings and / or response; more so with the 2nd amnd. pet. They may not all be clear in the documents or in this thread.

 

[2lolis1cup]

Perhaps I am simply too charitable or clueless. @DinkyCowSow has actually clarified some points in law that I was unsure of - or at least, forced me to look them up for a clearer picture.

Alas, these points are useful in a vacuum, but not applicable to the case when viewing all the evidence. I can see a prima facie argument for each specific person and cause of action. Most of them seem to be in the pleadings and / or response; more so with the 2nd amnd. pet. They may not all be clear in the documents or in this thread.

far too charitable.

The tard bird is essentially arguing the position the judge took in the hearing.
Person A gets contracts canceled by group B
Person A has proof of this for 1 contract
Person A has no damning proof of the rest of the contracts
Person A has text saying group B intends on doing just that

Person A has a prima facie case against group B
Person A DOES NOT have a preponderance of the evidence case against group B

TCPA requires a prima facie case to move forward. The judge required a preponderance of the evidence for some of the charges.

The bird is following the law offices of Twitt&Ers, not to be confused with Wei&Chetem&Howe. They are are parroting the same argument for pages on pages. If you want to see their argument get destroyed, go back a few pages. People were taking the bird more seriously then.

 

[Gehenna]

far too charitable.

The tard bird is essentially arguing the position the judge took in the hearing.
Person A gets contracts canceled by group B
Person A has proof of this for 1 contract
Person A has no damning proof of the rest of the contracts
Person A has text saying group B intends on doing just that

Person A has a prima facie case against group B
Person A DOES NOT have a preponderance of the evidence case against group B

TCPA requires a prima facie case to move forward. The judge required a preponderance of the evidence for some of the charges.

The bird is following the law offices of Twitt&Ers, not to be confused with Wei&Chetem&Howe. They are are parroting the same argument for pages on pages. If you want to see their argument get destroyed, go back a few pages. People were taking the bird more seriously then.

I spent so bloody long responding. I take solace in the fact I had fun with the research and expanding my own knowledge.

 

[TherapyMan]

That's true but I'm on page 50 and I've seen this situation 3 or 4 times already:

Chupp: You got the evidence?
Beard: Yeah.
Chupp: Lesse.
Beard: Um actually we don't. What I meant was-
Chupp: ffs

This is honestly what bugs me the most about the whole situation. Chupp was a bit quick on the trigger on a couple of causes of action and seemed genuinely confused as to some of the facts, but he threw Ty a bone numerous times with softball questions even after Ty whiffed on some basic parts of his argument, but Ty never seemed to capitalize on it.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

This is honestly what bugs me the most about the whole situation. Chupp was a bit quick on the trigger on a couple of causes of action and seemed genuinely confused as to some of the facts, but he threw Ty a bone numerous times with softball questions even after Ty whiffed on some basic parts of his argument, but Ty never seemed to capitalize on it.

I think Chupp really threw Ty off by not accepting his binder and not making it clear whether the 2nd amended petition was in or not.

It was just a bad hearing

 

[Immaculate Ape]

This is honestly what bugs me the most about the whole situation. Chupp was a bit quick on the trigger on a couple of causes of action and seemed genuinely confused as to some of the facts, but he threw Ty a bone numerous times with softball questions even after Ty whiffed on some basic parts of his argument, but Ty never seemed to capitalize on it.

The problem was, Chupp's "softball" questions were rhetorical. He asked for things that were clearer and only in the 2nd amended petition. It appears as though Chupp did it on purpose, because he was annoyed at the antics of Ty and Lemoine.

I wouldn't put it past Chupp to be that petty, considering how he's acted throughout all the hearings we've observed. He laid into Lemoine about Toye's 300 tweets, as well, with what seemed to be a drip of venom.

I read a bit of a message that Chupp is sending to Ty and Jayshaun

 

[Gehenna]

The problem was, Chupp's "softball" questions were rhetorical. He asked for things that were clearer and only in the 2nd amended petition. It appears as though Chupp did it on purpose, because he was annoyed at the antics of Ty and Lemoine.

I wouldn't put it past Chupp to be that petty, considering how he's acted throughout all the hearings we've observed. He laid into Lemoine about Toye's 300 tweets, as well, with what seemed to be a drip of venom.

I read a bit of a message that Chupp is sending to Ty and Jayshaun

Doing that in such an appealable way is.... several levels of bad.

 

[Son of Sparda 84]

The Vic Mignogna lawsuit

www.youtube.com

Here's a video with a lawyer (who's not lawtwitter nor ISWV) going over the lawsuit

Here's him reviewing the TCPA hearing

The Vic Mignogna Sep 6 Hearing - I React to the Transcripts

www.youtube.com

 

[Immaculate Ape]

The Vic Mignogna lawsuit

www.youtube.com

Here's a video with a lawyer (who's not lawtwitter nor ISWV) going over the lawsuit

Here's him reviewing the TCPA hearing

The Vic Mignogna Sep 6 Hearing - I React to the Transcripts

www.youtube.com

At 9 minutes into the second video regarding Johnson's argument about plaintiff unable to provide damages for the defamation... "Well, if it's 'per se' defamation he doesn't need to..."

So, sat throught the entire second video (sped up 1.5x cause he's painfully slow)

Sadly he dropped his objective view on the case less than an hour in. He seems to not really understand why Ty kept having to try and explain things. The case isn't as simple as Chupp wants it to be, a lot of it depends on context, and the fact he keeps making fun of Ty for trying to give context is just dumb.

Sad that he glazed over the opening of the transcript for time-saving reasons, and missed that Chupp threw a curve at Ty which sent him off-balance, and he couldn't seem to understand why Ty was so flustered/"disorganized".

The only thing I disagree with the YTer about is actual malice, and it was really stupid for him to "dunk" on Ty for trying to explain elements about the "investigation", because that's key to showing that Funimation tweeting their second tweet was reckless because they knew they fired him for something that wasn't anywhere close to what they were inferring in the second tweet.

Same thing with Monica, and Ron. They knew there were no criminal charges coming yet still made allegations on twitter.

So, proving actual malice seems to be the least difficult thing to do. I think by the time he got to that part of the transcript, he was just too invested in the "Ty is being smacked around, LUL" to actually remain objective enough to understand why Ty was trying to lay that out.

Edit: The other thing I actually took exception with, was the guy's clear ignorance of the voice acting industry and conventions. The fact he took issue with "not knowing how much your client makes" is stupid. Vic isn't guaranteed money in his voice acting pursuits. That's like asking how much someone expects to make in commission work.

And the same thing goes for conventions. There are so many moving parts to conventions, it's very difficult to tell what damages Vic actually had from the TI that cancelled his original contract with KamehaCon, and impossible to tell what he lost from prospective contracts. He can't tell because there are any number of mitigating factors to a convention's attendance, and whether or not people are there for you specifically, if they have enough to spend on you etc.

So being abrasive about being unable to provide an exact number for commission-based work, is just dumb. Ty provided Vic's examples and Chupp scoffed at it, albeit by that time Chupp had already seemed to have enough of Ty.

If Ty was allowed a mulligan, and come back with the same evidence, I think it'd be a different outcome. That's the issue I have here. Chupp wasn't going to allow Ty to "ambush" the defendants, which is fine, but then ambushed Ty and refused any attempts from Ty to try and get his footing early on.

 

[Garm]

At 9 minutes into the second video regarding Johnson's argument about plaintiff unable to provide damages for the defamation... "Well, if it's 'per se' defamation he doesn't need to..."

So, sat throught the entire second video (sped up 1.5x cause he's painfully slow)

Sadly he dropped his objective view on the case less than an hour in. He seems to not really understand why Ty kept having to try and explain things. The case isn't as simple as Chupp wants it to be, a lot of it depends on context, and the fact he keeps making fun of Ty for trying to give context is just dumb.

Sad that he glazed over the opening of the transcript for time-saving reasons, and missed that Chupp threw a curve at Ty which sent him off-balance, and he couldn't seem to understand why Ty was so flustered/"disorganized".

The only thing I disagree with the YTer about is actual malice, and it was really stupid for him to "dunk" on Ty for trying to explain elements about the "investigation", because that's key to showing that Funimation tweeting their second tweet was reckless because they knew they fired him for something that wasn't anywhere close to what they were inferring in the second tweet.

Same thing with Monica, and Ron. They knew there were no criminal charges coming yet still made allegations on twitter.

So, proving actual malice seems to be the least difficult thing to do. I think by the time he got to that part of the transcript, he was just too invested in the "Ty is being smacked around, LUL" to actually remain objective enough to understand why Ty was trying to lay that out.

Edit: The other thing I actually took exception with, was the guy's clear ignorance of the voice acting industry and conventions. The fact he took issue with "not knowing how much your client makes" is stupid. Vic isn't guaranteed money in his voice acting pursuits. That's like asking how much someone expects to make in commission work.

And the same thing goes for conventions. There are so many moving parts to conventions, it's very difficult to tell what damages Vic actually had from the TI that cancelled his original contract with KamehaCon, and impossible to tell what he lost from prospective contracts. He can't tell because there are any number of mitigating factors to a convention's attendance, and whether or not people are there for you specifically, if they have enough to spend on you etc.

So being abrasive about being unable to provide an exact number for commission-based work, is just dumb. Ty provided Vic's examples and Chupp scoffed at it, albeit by that time Chupp had already seemed to have enough of Ty.

If Ty was allowed a mulligan, and come back with the same evidence, I think it'd be a different outcome. That's the issue I have here. Chupp wasn't going to allow Ty to "ambush" the defendants, which is fine, but then ambushed Ty and refused any attempts from Ty to try and get his footing early on.

I get the feeling that even if Ty got estimates from a few accounting firms about the amount of money Vic lost, it wouldn't have mattered to Chupp. Chupp would have said "this just clutters the binder" and never considered it.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

So being abrasive about being unable to provide an exact number for commission-based work, is just dumb. Ty provided Vic's examples and Chupp scoffed at it, albeit by that time Chupp had already seemed to have enough of Ty.

under texas caselaw, you literally do not have to show exact damages to pass the TCPA, only SOME damages, anyone making this argument is actually just wrong and hasn't done the research

 

[DinkyCowSow]

This all makes more sense if you believe DinkyCowSow is simply repeating what Chubbs said. Chubbs denied the TI despite a statement from the con runner and the person interfering admitting to it and claiming they're gonna do it with other conventions. Therefore Sow will deny it. Chubbs says that there are no contracts despite Ty having the Kamehacon one and saying others were oral contracts. Therefore Sow says there aren't any contracts.

Not what I am saying. I think it's actually likely there were verbal contracts for some of these conventions. I think Ty did a crappy job of showing that to the judge. They should have been able to show some evidence for each contract they were suing for existing, other than stating they existed. You cannot just state the contract exists and that it was broken because of the defendants: "mere notice pleading—that is, general allegations that merely recite the elements of a cause of action—will not suffice." So, what should Ty have done at a bare minimum? For each existing contract, cited text messages or emails to Vic or phone calls to Vic saying that the conventions were cancelled. The problem is Ty didn't even seem to know which contracts were prospective and which were existing, which both have different elements you had to satisfy, and he didn't seem to try and really satisfy either.

under texas caselaw, you literally do not have to show exact damages to pass the TCPA, only SOME damages, anyone making this argument is actually just wrong and hasn't done the research

Again, every time you guys cite this law you are ignoring a big part of it. The plaintiff put forward a specific amount of money they claimed they had lost. The defendant argued that because they could not prove that 100% of those loses came because of defendant's actions, it should be thrown out. The Texas Supreme Court said that the evidence for damages they provided and the evidence that plaintiff's actions had been a cause were "sufficient to draw a rational inference that some damages naturally flowed from defendant's conduct."

The problem here is that they were able to show some damages. Ty did not show some damages, he just had a statement that damages existed (broken up by what Vic or Slatosch claimed was paid for, but not including any amounts). Under the absolute strictest interpretation of the TCPA, that may be enough, but I'm not really convinced. I welcome, for the third or fourth time, for somebody to find me a case where someone got past a TCPA element proving damages without actually citing any numeric value for damages.

I will gladly admit I'm a bit confused by Chupp saying that because Vic agreed to the changes to the contract he wasn't really damaged. I look forward to reading his opinion later with more information.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

'specific amount of damages'

Go fuck yourself

S&S Emergency Training Solutions, Inc. v. Elliott (Opinion)

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals holding that Emergency Medical Training Services (EMTS) did not provide clear and specific evidence under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 27.003, of a prima facie case that a former employee...

law.justia.com

"Direct evidence of damages is not required, but the evidence must be sufficient to allow a rational inference that some damages naturally flowed from the defendant’s conduct. See id. at 591, 592; Sw. Battery Corp. v. Owen, 115 S.W.2d 1097, 1099 (Tex. 1938 (“A party who breaks his contract cannot escape liability because it is impossible to state or prove a perfect measure of damages.”). "

I swear to god you're the stupidest person I've ever come across. Nobody except for you thinks that not being able to provide an exact measurement of damages defeats a lawsuit at this stage

 

[DinkyCowSow]

Go fuck yourself

S&S Emergency Training Solutions, Inc. v. Elliott (Opinion)

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals holding that Emergency Medical Training Services (EMTS) did not provide clear and specific evidence under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 27.003, of a prima facie case that a former employee...

law.justia.com

"Direct evidence of damages is not required, but the evidence must be sufficient to allow a rational inference that some damages naturally flowed from the defendant’s conduct. See id. at 591, 592; Sw. Battery Corp. v. Owen, 115 S.W.2d 1097, 1099 (Tex. 1938 (“A party who breaks his contract cannot escape liability because it is impossible to state or prove a perfect measure of damages.”). "

I swear to god you're the stupidest person I've ever come across.

Again, you are just wrong. Clearly wrong.

What I said: "The plaintiff put forward a specific amount of money they claimed they had lost. "
What the plaintiff did: exactly that.

The plaintiff put forward evidence showing that they charged $4,950 dollars to each student, training 30 students in each class, and that they had conducted approximately 10 classes. They also established that because of the defendant's actions they would not be able to hold these classes anymore. So, they established how much money they made before, and that they would make $0 after.

The defendant's counter argument was, essentially, "Hey, maybe no students would have attended anyways in the future, or maybe fewer students would have signed up, so you can't calculate exact damages!" The court disagreed, because the plaintiff had shown how much money they were making before, showed they wouldn't make any after, and showed that it was because of the defendant's that the classes wouldn't be cancelled. This allowed the court to make a rational inference that it was because of the defendant's actions that some of the profits they listed would be lost.

Ty did not even attempt to provide an estimate of what was lost. He just said "Well Vic paid for security. He was put in a worse spot." What if Vic actually sold more gear because of the controversy? What if the conference decided to pay him more as an apology? Why did Ty not provide evidence of the actual damages to the Judge?

 

[Sheryl Nome]

This birb can't read

“A party who breaks his contract cannot escape liability because it is impossible to state or prove a perfect measure of damages.”
How can you miss that there's literally the line

"—the court measured the evidence by whether EMTS produced evidence of the specific amount of damages the disclosures caused instead of properly determining whether EMTS produced prima facie evidence that the disclosures simply caused it some damages "

And the Supreme Court accepted and affirmed that objection.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

Here's another example, cited in the same case you just brought up! Moldovan v. Polito.

A photographer accused someone of defamation (not per se, so they were required to prove damages). The photographer showed that they had earned over $180k for the months of January through May in recent years, but after the defendant's statements they earned less than $40k in the same time period. They also showed decline in bookings. Not only did they offer specific amounts, they also included their tax returns as evidence to show this. Strange that they didn't just say "I had damages because I had fewer bookings", I wonder why that is?

“A party who breaks his contract cannot escape liability because it is impossible to state or prove a perfect measure of damages.”
How can you miss that there's literally the line

"—the court measured the evidence by whether EMTS produced evidence of the specific amount of damages the disclosures caused instead of properly determining whether EMTS produced prima facie evidence that the disclosures simply caused it some damages "

And the Supreme Court accepted and affirmed that objection.

Yes, Ty doesn't need to provide a PERFECT measure of damages, but he didn't provide ANY measure of damages.

The court holds that you don't have to do something ridiculous like show that you have lost exactly $34,295.11 between this year and last and that the defendant's are 80.4% responsible, leading to an exact loss of $27,573.26 (rounded down). However, you still have to show damages.

So, I think we can agree saying "I suffered loss of profits" does not meet the standard. I think we can also agree saying "I suffered $50,000 in lost profits, and here are the documents that show what I made before and what I made after" does meet the standard. The only thing we disagree on is whether "I suffered loss of profits because I had to pay for security and had a less desirable location" meets the standard.

Go on, find me a single case where someone needed to provide a clear and specific prima facie element of damages, but did so without even putting forward a number for the damages.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

"—the court measured the evidence by whether EMTS produced evidence of the specific amount of damages the disclosures caused instead of properly determining whether EMTS produced prima facie evidence that the disclosures simply caused it some damages "

Please read. Please. Read the words. Read them. Read them. Oh my god why can't you read

WHY WON'T IT READ?

 

[DinkyCowSow]

"Your honor, I had some damages"

"Damn, you right, we can consider clear fashee to be specifically primed."