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

[DragoonSierra]

Ty's talked about how busy he was with other cases in a stream he did with Nick waiting for the arbitration, maybe they've just taken on too much and are overworked.

I really do think Ty really misread the judge and expected Chupp to see through the defendants nonsense and know tcpa law. Its quite possible he didnt devote as much time as he did because he thought everything he had made that hearing a slam dunk. And it kinda was.

 

[Markorian]

I will scream this statement from every rooftop.

Ty needs to take this point alone and fuck appeals court in the ass with it. With ghost pepper hot sauce for lube.

I hope he does this right, given he's going to need to use every word he's allotted due to all of Chupp's fuckups. Just from the top of my head:
-Allowing the defense to supplement filings despite clearly being outside the letter and spirit of the TCPA, while not allowing Ty to amend despite it being perfectly legal
-Allowing the retraction of the previous filing but not the submission of the amended filing
-Ruling Vic a general purpose public figure based on there being 20 people in a courtroom
-Asking for a preponderance of the evidence despite the burden being clear and specific
-Asking for exact monetary damages despite the only thing needed at this stage being evidence of damage existing
-Throwing out tortious interference for toye, despite it being the most black and white obvious thing I've ever seen in any court setting
-Ruling that getting a new, far worse contract after the previous contract was broken means no damages occurred

And there are plenty more anyone with an actual background in law would be able to fit in.

I really do think Ty really misread the judge and expected Chupp to see through the defendants nonsense and know tcpa law. Its quite possible he didnt devote as much time as he did because he thought everything he had made that hearing a slam dunk. And it kinda was.

Ironically, with all their miserable filings, Lemonparty Fuhrer made the most convenient thing for Chupp to do be throwing the entire case out and give them everything they want.

 

[AnOminous]

I hope he does this right, given he's going to need to use every word he's allotted due to all of Chupp's fuckups. Just from the top of my head:

I hope he does this right by having someone else do it. The case law is fairly all over the map on a number of issues, with precedents of varying levels of weight, with Texas Supreme Court and Second District being the most binding, but sometimes contradictory opinions from other intermediate appellate courts and even federal courts (before the Fifth Circuit got out of the TCPA business entirely).

That's just the TCPA stuff, which is a bit bewildering and not all settled law. There are a lot of other appellate-specific procedural issues that are more or less non-standard and possibly don't have cases directly on point.

This really calls for an appellate specialist, preferably someone with experience in both TCPA and procedure (since absolutely fucking up procedure seems to be Chupp's specialty), and even better, experience arguing TCPA cases before the specific Fort Worth appeals court.

 

[Bender]

I hope he does this right by having someone else do it. The case law is fairly all over the map on a number of issues, with precedents of varying levels of weight, with Texas Supreme Court and Second District being the most binding, but sometimes contradictory opinions from other intermediate appellate courts and even federal courts (before the Fifth Circuit got out of the TCPA business entirely).

That's just the TCPA stuff, which is a bit bewildering and not all settled law. There are a lot of other appellate-specific procedural issues that are more or less non-standard and possibly don't have cases directly on point.

This really calls for an appellate specialist, preferably someone with experience in both TCPA and procedure (since absolutely fucking up procedure seems to be Chupp's specialty), and even better, experience arguing TCPA cases before the specific Fort Worth appeals court.

Didn't they get additional council who specialises in TCPA?

 

[teriyakiburns]

Didn't they get additional council who specialises in TCPA?

I'm still convinced that his arrival on the case is what led to the late-night failing being such a mess. I outlined it somewhere, but the tl;dr is they called him up close to the deadline because he's a TCPA expert and has been in front of Chupp before, he told them that the filing would be inadequate in the face of Chupp's Chuppery, so they rushed to re-write it at the last minute with a bunch of extra evidence over and above the standard they had previously expected to have to meet. IMO it really does explain how much they fucked up with missing references, piles of poorly optimised attachments, and the last-minute notary stupidity.

 

[Slimy Time]

I'm still convinced that his arrival on the case is what led to the late-night failing being such a mess. I outlined it somewhere, but the tl;dr is they called him up close to the deadline because he's a TCPA expert and has been in front of Chupp before, he told them that the filing would be inadequate in the face of Chupp's Chuppery, so they rushed to re-write it at the last minute with a bunch of extra evidence over and above the standard they had previously expected to have to meet. IMO it really does explain how much they fucked up with missing references, piles of poorly optimised attachments, and the last-minute notary stupidity.

That would make a lot of sense. Generally from what I remember Beard's filings were fine prior to that last one, so that would give reason for why it looked rushed and was a mess. Hoping that they do appeal, that Vic did give the green light and that appeals see how poorly Chupp screwed up.

 

[Gehenna]

-Allowing the defense to supplement filings despite clearly being outside the letter and spirit of the TCPA, while not allowing Ty to amend despite it being perfectly legal
-Allowing the retraction of the previous filing but not the submission of the amended filing
-Ruling Vic a general purpose public figure based on there being 20 people in a courtroom
-Asking for a preponderance of the evidence despite the burden being clear and specific
-Asking for exact monetary damages despite the only thing needed at this stage being evidence of damage existing
-Throwing out tortious interference for toye, despite it being the most black and white obvious thing I've ever seen in any court setting
-Ruling that getting a new, far worse contract after the previous contract was broken means no damages occurred

@AnOminous Would it be too much for you to consider any other appealable points? I don't think this thread has really seen a concentrated overview of the sheer breadth of chuppery.

 

[MakeAnimeGA]

Looks like the Führer is wanting to get paid. Asking for a 2 hour hearing.

Looks like the Führer is wanting to get paid. Asking for a 2 hour hearing.

"Second, we would request permission to file the requisite attorneys’ fees affidavits on November 4, 2019, without attaching the billing invoices (which we would instead introduce at the evidentiary hearing). If this request is allowed, we would file the affidavits, and in lieu of filing the billing invoices, we would serve a copy of the invoices on Plaintiff’s counsel (on November 4, 2019) and provide a courtesy copy to the Court at whatever time the Court directs (for example, on November 4, 2019 or some time before the actual evidentiary hearing). We would then introduce the billing invoices into the record at the evidentiary hearing. "

I'm not a lawyer, but this seems odd.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

"Second, we would request permission to file the requisite attorneys’ fees affidavits on November 4, 2019, without attaching the billing invoices (which we would instead introduce at the evidentiary hearing). If this request is allowed, we would file the affidavits, and in lieu of filing the billing invoices, we would serve a copy of the invoices on Plaintiff’s counsel (on November 4, 2019) and provide a courtesy copy to the Court at whatever time the Court directs (for example, on November 4, 2019 or some time before the actual evidentiary hearing). We would then introduce the billing invoices into the record at the evidentiary hearing. "

I'm not a lawyer, but this seems odd.

Does he... not have his billable hours set as invoice? Is he having debates with his dipshit clients about what is and isn't billable?

If they're trying to find a way to get Greg T. Douche on the invoice, well, that'd be funny...

 

[Gehenna]

"Second, we would request permission to file the requisite attorneys’ fees affidavits on November 4, 2019, without attaching the billing invoices (which we would instead introduce at the evidentiary hearing). If this request is allowed, we would file the affidavits, and in lieu of filing the billing invoices, we would serve a copy of the invoices on Plaintiff’s counsel (on November 4, 2019) and provide a courtesy copy to the Court at whatever time the Court directs (for example, on November 4, 2019 or some time before the actual evidentiary hearing). We would then introduce the billing invoices into the record at the evidentiary hearing. "

I'm not a lawyer, but this seems odd.

My first reading is "We don't want the plaintiff to be able to effectively rebuke it"

Just reeks of trying to give plaintiffs as little time and ability as possible to take issue.

 

[Red Wizard]

This is probably good business sense. The affidavits would probably state rates, and the invoice would give the total. He wants to introduce the invoice as late as possible, so that they can run the total up.

EDIT: It's deceptive as fuck and probably against the spirit of the statute.

 

[Gehenna]

This is probably good business sense. The affidavits would probably state rates, and the invoice would give the total. He wants to introduce the invoice as late as possible, so that they can run the total up.

EDIT: It's deceptive as fuck and probably against the spirit of the statute.

Oh, I have no doubt its good business sense. Skeezy as fuck and unethical, but good business.

 

[theworstkindofeurofag]

It's deceptive as fuck and probably against the spirit of the statute.

Chupp, as I got to know him, most likely won't give a fuck, though.

Chupp will have to rule on this, right?

 

[Red Wizard]

Chupp, as I got to know him, most likely won't give a fuck, though.

Chupp will have to rule on this, right?

I'm not sure that he will. This is a letter to Chupp, and not a motion of any sort. There's still appeals coming, which could invalidate this entire conversation. Probably why it's a letter, and not a motion.

 

[Garm]

Didn't they get additional council who specialises in TCPA?

An Lee is an expert in Tortious Interference and contract law I believe. So they brought him in to argue the finer points of that. His experience with Chupp being an unexpected perk.

Of course Chupp just up and said "no Tortious interference here" and there really wasn't an argument.

I take them adding An Lee as in indication that BHBH will admit when they need help and will ask for it.

We still have to see how appeals works out though.

"Second, we would request permission to file the requisite attorneys’ fees affidavits on November 4, 2019, without attaching the billing invoices (which we would instead introduce at the evidentiary hearing). If this request is allowed, we would file the affidavits, and in lieu of filing the billing invoices, we would serve a copy of the invoices on Plaintiff’s counsel (on November 4, 2019) and provide a courtesy copy to the Court at whatever time the Court directs (for example, on November 4, 2019 or some time before the actual evidentiary hearing). We would then introduce the billing invoices into the record at the evidentiary hearing. "

I'm not a lawyer, but this seems odd.

This seems to be unnecessarily complicated. Billing should be a straight forward process but... Why an extra evidentiary hearing? There shouldn't be extra hearing right?

 

[Sheryl Nome]

An Lee is an expert in Tortious Interference and contract law I believe. So they brought him in to argue the finer points of that. His experience with Chupp being an unexpected perk.

Of course Chupp just up and said "no Tortious interference here" and there really wasn't an argument.

I take them adding An Lee as in indication that BHBH will admit when they need help and will ask for it.

We still have to see how appeals works out though.



This seems to be unnecessarily complicated. Billing should be a straight forward process but... Why an extra evidentiary hearing? There shouldn't be extra hearing right?

Because of the go fund me

 

[Garm]

Because of the go fund me

Except... That... It's just salt over the GoFundMe? Because that should go to BHBH.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Except... That... It's just salt over the GoFundMe? Because that should go to BHBH.

Yes. Its literally salt over the gofundme and they STILL want to depose nick lmao

 

[HTTP Error 404]

Except... That... It's just salt over the GoFundMe? Because that should go to BHBH.

You don't think he told MoRonica that they'd get the entire Go Fund Me if they won?

You don't think MoRonica is demanding he get the entire Go Fund Me now that they won?

It's either a gay op of some kind -- "we should get our billable hours for the appeal too!", "can we put the payments to Renfamous as legal fees?", etc -- or it's them trying to justify some attempt to go after the GFM.

 

[teriyakiburns]

You don't think he told MoRonica that they'd get the entire Go Fund Me if they won?

You don't think MoRonica is demanding he get the entire Go Fund Me now that they won?

It's either a gay op of some kind -- "we should get our billable hours for the appeal too!", "can we put the payments to Renfamous as legal fees?", etc -- or it's them trying to justify some attempt to go after the GFM.

Until now I would have said that even they can't be that buttfuck stupid, but here we are.