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

Destacado
Manwithn0n0men dijo:
So when does an Appeal happen from here? @AnOminous
Presiona para expandir...

It already has, as of the signing of Chupp's final order. The first deadline is the record from the trial court has to be lodged with the appeals court within 120 days.

I'm not sure if that's happened yet, but at least some of it has been filed.

After that, the appellant (the party appealing) has 30 days to file their opening brief. This is the operative document in the appeal. The appellee (the party being appealed against) has 30 days from then to file their reply brief. I would expect in this case there will be at least one round of sur-replies after this. These supplemental briefs generally get shorter.

Then the appeals court either sets the case for oral argument, generally a brief hearing less than an hour which may be entirely consumed by questions from the judges on the panel, or if the court doesn't feel it is necessary and it isn't required by some other rule, it can simply decide the case.

After the oral argument, the appeals court issues an opinion basically whenever it feels like it.

I had assumed previously this would be on an accelerated schedule and had posted the rules for that in a previous post, but the papers actually filed have a checkbox for whether it's accelerated and this isn't checked, so apparently it isn't. At least I don't see any indication of that.

The rules for the TCPA make certain appeals, like interlocutory appeals and appeals of denials, automatically accelerated, but this apparently doesn't apply to an appeal after a final judgment fully granting a TCPA.

But I'd anticipate, just based on previous cases, that they'll handle this relatively quickly, so it will be more on the order of seven months than over a year. Texas appeals courts seem to grasp that TCPA cases should be heard somewhat expeditiously.
 
MCG_Raven dijo:
that's kinda what i mean though. MONICA said that was the case for sure. NOT Funimation. We know Funimation meant that as we read the tweet and have enough of an understanding of the english language to put this together. But they will run with the whole "Nah we never said that this way" as OneHandClapping pointed out in his response to this.
Presiona para expandir...
Would that me evidence of conspiracy or of Monica being an agent?

BigDuckEnergy dijo:
Might have been fine if Vic didn't admit to touching her hair, it could easily be found that she 100% believed it to be sexual which wouldn't stick under defamation. Regardless, doing a publicity stunt of fake kissing in front of fans would never stick as malice. They are performers, they perform for fans, so what? Was that ever entered as evidence anyway? No, so doesn't matter to the appeals court.

Zero evidence of TI in regards to Marchi, and the only thing for civil conspiracy is the secret discord which was never entered into evidence so the appeals court will not even look at it, and even then the leaks didn't actually show anything from before the allegations or any admittance of falsity.

I get it, Marchi is an asshat. I would rather see her taken down but the facts of this case has weak evidence, prima facie or otherwise, that can be shown to the appeals court. Not saying it's 100% she gets off but it is looking extremely slim she won't.

We can tell from her public actions that she is full of shit, that is no good in court though.

Edit: all I'm saying is that it is probably best to assume Marchi is out of the case, but be pleasantly surprised if she isn't.
Presiona para expandir...
Marchis ride of die comment about Monica seems like potential conspiracy. Anything saying she communicated with Monica about Vic would be enough I think.
 
MCG_Raven dijo:
It would serve for Funimation as evidence that *they* didn't defame Vic that THEIR hands are clean. They claim Monica is entirely independant so unless Vic's team can pin them together surefire that's an out on defamation for Funi
Presiona para expandir...
It also serves as evidence of the general understanding of Funimations message., and their failure to repudiate Monica's message means that a reasonable person would believe that the meaning of the Funimation message was defamatory
 
Contract Breach dijo:
It also serves as evidence of the general understanding of Funimations message., and their failure to repudiate Monica's message means that a reasonable person would believe that the meaning of the Funimation message was defamatory
Presiona para expandir...
Was Monica's E-mail to HR given as evidence? The one of her asking them to make a statement because "she doesn't know what she can and can't say" or however she said it. That seems like it'd be a dead ringer for at least conspiracy between Funimation and Monica, unless they try and separate themselves from their social media manager, which I think is what they were doing in their filings.
 
AnOminous dijo:
It already has, as of the signing of Chupp's final order. The first deadline is the record from the trial court has to be lodged with the appeals court within 120 days.

I'm not sure if that's happened yet, but at least some of it has been filed.

After that, the appellant (the party appealing) has 30 days to file their opening brief. This is the operative document in the appeal. The appellee (the party being appealed against) has 30 days from then to file their reply brief. I would expect in this case there will be at least one round of sur-replies after this. These supplemental briefs generally get shorter.

Then the appeals court either sets the case for oral argument, generally a brief hearing less than an hour which may be entirely consumed by questions from the judges on the panel, or if the court doesn't feel it is necessary and it isn't required by some other rule, it can simply decide the case.

After the oral argument, the appeals court issues an opinion basically whenever it feels like it.

I had assumed previously this would be on an accelerated schedule and had posted the rules for that in a previous post, but the papers actually filed have a checkbox for whether it's accelerated and this isn't checked, so apparently it isn't. At least I don't see any indication of that.

The rules for the TCPA make certain appeals, like interlocutory appeals and appeals of denials, automatically accelerated, but this apparently doesn't apply to an appeal after a final judgment fully granting a TCPA.

But I'd anticipate, just based on previous cases, that they'll handle this relatively quickly, so it will be more on the order of seven months than over a year. Texas appeals courts seem to grasp that TCPA cases should be heard somewhat expeditiously.
Presiona para expandir...

Just curious. Do the defendants and plaintiff have to be present at the oral argument? Asking because it looks like Marchi has been losing sleep from the lawsuit. She has heavy bags under her eyes every time she shows up.
 
Tipsy Tea Cup dijo:
Just curious. Do the defendants and plaintiff have to be present at the oral argument? Asking because it looks like Marchi has been losing sleep from the lawsuit. She has heavy bags under her eyes every time she shows up.
Presiona para expandir...

Are you sure those are bags from lack of sleep or new pockets of fat such as the ones you might find on ALR?
 
Tipsy Tea Cup dijo:
Just curious. Do the defendants and plaintiff have to be present at the oral argument? Asking because it looks like Marchi has been losing sleep from the lawsuit. She has heavy bags under her eyes every time she shows up.
Presiona para expandir...

I expect no less than 5 motions from Lemoine to attend if he normally isn't allowed.

That is, if he can afford to at this point.
 
OneHandClapping dijo:
New document
2019-12-03 Supplemental Designation of Clerk's Record

Looks like it just wants the various filing related to fees and sanctions to be officially entered into the clerk's record.
Presiona para expandir...
in b4: Notice of Intent to File Motion To Quash Supplemental Designation of Clerk's Record!
AnOminous dijo:
That's exactly the kind of argument an insurance company would make. And exactly the kind of argument they win with all the time, because whatever court looks at it is likely to be persuaded by the fact that the policy language says something like reasonable fees, and the statutory language says reasonable fees, and a court made findings of fact and conclusions of law that explained why they were reasonable fees and. . .oh wait, the court didn't do that yet, but Lemoine nicely asked for it. So it's going to do that. Great jerb Lemoine!
Presiona para expandir...
But surely, there's an impotent super lawyer on Twitter who'll represent MoRon pro-bono against the giant fucking insurance company and it's imperial navy of actual lawyers!

And other stupid things KV/LawTwits say!
 
AStupidMonkey dijo:
in b4: Notice of Intent to File Motion To Quash Supplemental Designation of Clerk's Record!

But surely, there's an impotent super lawyer on Twitter who'll represent MoRon pro-bono against the giant fucking insurance company and it's imperial navy of actual lawyers!

And other stupid things KV/LawTwits say!
Presiona para expandir...
Nah man christopher hooks will go bat for ron. I heard he is one of the best lawyers to hire against insurance companies.He will fight until they pay.
 
Facts Over Feels dijo:
After the beating Lemoine took from Chupp regarding his grossly inflated billing, I doubt that his firm will stand for any more of the Lemon Fuhrer's time wasting BS that they won't get paid for.
Presiona para expandir...
Speaking of chupp, anyone have any info on chupps response to request for facts and findings for the decision at fees and sanctions?
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo