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

Destacado
Dumb Bitch Smoothie dijo:
I swore I saw this one posted already.

But I'll repeat myself for this whole situation.

"I thought appeals were for losers"
Presiona para expandir...

I love how utterly silent they all were; to the point even Greggy only mentioned this filing in passing.

Sure, it's another win; that's why they're all mostly silent, and very few can even try and spin it.

I saw in the weeb wars thread some time back, some are saying even if Vic wins, it's still a loss. So some seem to be already internalising the possibility of the appeals go Vic's way.
 
diskboomer dijo:
I love how utterly silent they all were; to the point even Greggy only mentioned this filing in passing.

Sure, it's another win; that's why they're all mostly silent, and very few can even try and spin it.

I saw in the weeb wars thread some time back, some are saying even if Vic wins, it's still a loss. So some seem to be already internalising the possibility of the appeals go Vic's way.
Presiona para expandir...

Well, Vic has lost as much as he's gonna lose. The financial side isn't really an issue unless he's suddenly given millions of dollars in owed fees which is unlikely, in fact I think he's gonna end up owing less in the event that appeals don't happen because Lemoine is proving to be an exceptional faggot.

That being said, they can't do much else to Vic. They can claim loss after loss but he's on the upswing already. He's moving on with his life and looking beyond voice acting.

Honestly? I think he's gonna do better than he would have if he stuck with Funi. These accusations are terrible and they 100% deserve to be destroyed for what they did to him. And I 100% wish it didn't have to go this way.

But Vic would have always answered to someone else if he had stayed at Funi. He would have always had people who were out to get him. This whole series of events essentially purged all the shitty people in his life in one swoop. He's considering doing his own thing. Breaking free.

I mean, with everything that's come up with Funimation....especially the stuff that doesn't concern Vic, it seems toxic. RT for sure, but that was known with the whole Monty/Sheena situation and the fallout from that plus the direction RT took in his absence.

All the snakes in the convention community, unmasking the people who really are scummy and problematic based on how they behaved when things didn't go their way.

It sucks. But Vic has stayed true to himself the whole time and I think that says more in the long run about his success than anything else.
 
AnOminous dijo:
Imagine telling a judge that you're going to charge your clients that amount of money, after a long pause, and no way to pay it.

The Soye Boye must be really horrified.

Do you know how much a lawsuit costs, Ron?

MORE THAN YOU CAN AFFORD.
Presiona para expandir...

Ahem. "A real man pays for his own lawyer."
 
Is there a PDF available anywhere of this new filing?

edit: Found it: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/victor-mignogna-v-funimation-productions-llc-et-al.55556/post-5720719

So now we know why Shane was all riled up on Friday.

archive.ph

Hellberg, Jeffrey - Austin, Dallas, & Fort Worth Attorneys - Wick Phi…

archived 15 Dec 2019 20:37:28 UTC
archive.ph archive.ph

1576442269590.png


1576442284645.png


And yes, he's a Super Lawyer.

Here's his legal CV... or maybe just cases he wants to brag about?
  • Golman–Hayden Co., Inc. v. Fresh Source Produce, Inc., 217 F.3d 348 (5th Cir. 2000)
  • In re Azle Manor, 83 S.W.3d 401 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2002, orig. proceeding)
  • All Commercial Floors, Inc. v. Barton & Rasor, 97 S.W.3d 723 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2003, no pet.)
  • Bennett v. Bank United, 114 S.W.3d 75 (Tex. App. – Austin 2003, no pet.)
  • Lewis v. Bank of America, NA, 347 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 2003)
  • Straza v. Friedman, Driegert & Hsueh, LLC., 124 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2003, pet. denied)
  • Pillitteri v. Brown, 165 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2004, no pet.)
  • Smith v. Ferguson, 160 S.W.3d 115 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2005, pet. denied)
  • Gandy Nursery, Inc. v. U.S., 412 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2005)
  • In re Richard Rogers, 200 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2006, orig. proceeding)
  • Gray & Co. Realtors, Inc. v. Atlantic Housing Foundation, Inc., 228 S.W.3d 431 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2007, no pet.)
  • Solares v. Solares, 232 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2007, no pet.)
  • NCP Finance, Ltd. Partnership v. Escatiola, 350 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2011, no pet.)
  • Bendalin v. Youngblood & Associates,381 S.W.3d 719 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2012, pet. denied)
  • American Cancer Soc. v. Cook, 675 F.3d 524 (5th Cir. 2012)
  • Levetz v. Sutton, 404 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2013, pet. denied)
  • Pjetrovic v. 4HG Fannin Investments, LLC., 400 S.W.3d 119 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2013, pet. denied)
  • Palla v. Bio-One, Inc., 424 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2014, no pet.)
  • American Heritage Capital, L.P. v. Gonzalez, 436 S.W.3d 865 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2014, no pet.)
  • Lawyers Title Co. v. J.G. Cooper Development, Inc., 424 S.W.3d 713 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2014, pet. denied)
  • Cuba v. Pylant, 814 F.3d 701 (5th Cir. 2016)
Anything bold I believe is one he lost?

Looking at "American Heritage Capital, L.P. v. Gonzalez", it's a "no pet" (No Petition?), and I see it cited a few times, so... Found it on caselaw: https://cite.case.law/sw3d/436/865/

If I'm reading it right, Hellberg was the American Heritage Capital lawyer. Reading through it... both sides got spanked down.

As an aside, WickPhillips claimed $15,000 was WAY too much to fight... a TCPA and Defamation suit, and thus the defense were awarded excessive legal fees. $400 would be more appropriate, they apparently argued.

The same company is asking for $250,000 now.

Here's Lawyer's Title Co vs J.G. Cooper Development, INC. Hellberg is the Appellee (defense?): https://cite.case.law/sw3d/424/713/

Looks like this one was partially overturned.

I'm just not sure on the terms, and if he "pet. denied" are ones he lost or won or what.
 
Última edición por un moderador:
HTTP Error 404 dijo:
archive.ph

Hellberg, Jeffrey - Austin, Dallas, & Fort Worth Attorneys - Wick Phi…

archived 15 Dec 2019 20:37:28 UTC
archive.ph archive.ph

Ver archivo adjunto 1052333

Ver archivo adjunto 1052334

And yes, he's a Super Lawyer.

Here's his legal CV... or maybe just cases he wants to brag about?
  • Golman–Hayden Co., Inc. v. Fresh Source Produce, Inc., 217 F.3d 348 (5th Cir. 2000)
  • In re Azle Manor, 83 S.W.3d 401 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2002, orig. proceeding)
  • All Commercial Floors, Inc. v. Barton & Rasor, 97 S.W.3d 723 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2003, no pet.)
  • Bennett v. Bank United, 114 S.W.3d 75 (Tex. App. – Austin 2003, no pet.)
  • Lewis v. Bank of America, NA, 347 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 2003)
  • Straza v. Friedman, Driegert & Hsueh, LLC., 124 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2003, pet. denied)
  • Pillitteri v. Brown, 165 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2004, no pet.)
  • Smith v. Ferguson, 160 S.W.3d 115 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2005, pet. denied)
  • Gandy Nursery, Inc. v. U.S., 412 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2005)
  • In re Richard Rogers, 200 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2006, orig. proceeding)
  • Gray & Co. Realtors, Inc. v. Atlantic Housing Foundation, Inc., 228 S.W.3d 431 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2007, no pet.)
  • Solares v. Solares, 232 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2007, no pet.)
  • NCP Finance, Ltd. Partnership v. Escatiola, 350 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2011, no pet.)
  • Bendalin v. Youngblood & Associates,381 S.W.3d 719 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2012, pet. denied)
  • American Cancer Soc. v. Cook, 675 F.3d 524 (5th Cir. 2012)
  • Levetz v. Sutton, 404 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2013, pet. denied)
  • Pjetrovic v. 4HG Fannin Investments, LLC., 400 S.W.3d 119 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2013, pet. denied)
  • Palla v. Bio-One, Inc., 424 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2014, no pet.)
  • American Heritage Capital, L.P. v. Gonzalez, 436 S.W.3d 865 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2014, no pet.)
  • Lawyers Title Co. v. J.G. Cooper Development, Inc., 424 S.W.3d 713 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2014, pet. denied)
  • Cuba v. Pylant, 814 F.3d 701 (5th Cir. 2016)
Anything bold I believe is one he lost?

Looking at "American Heritage Capital, L.P. v. Gonzalez", it's a "no pet" (No Petition?), and I see it cited a few times, so... Found it on caselaw: https://cite.case.law/sw3d/436/865/

If I'm reading it right, Hellberg was the American Heritage Capital lawyer. Reading through it... both sides got spanked down.

As an aside, WickPhillips claimed $15,000 was WAY too much to fight... a TCPA and Defamation suit, and thus the defense were awarded excessive legal fees. $400 would be more appropriate, they apparently argued.

The same company is asking for $250,000 now.

Here's Lawyer's Title Co vs J.G. Cooper Development, INC. Hellberg is the Appellee (defense?): https://cite.case.law/sw3d/424/713/

Looks like this one was partially overturned.

I'm just not sure on the terms, and if he "pet. denied" are ones he lost or won or what.
Presiona para expandir...

Hope that someone gives that information about 15k being too much to the CoA when that cross appeal comes up.

I hope someone forwards that to Ty/Nick.
 
Dumb Bitch Smoothie dijo:
I wonder how many affidavits will come crashing down once things get going.
How many liars are MoRon (and Jamie) gonna be on the hook for encouraging?
Presiona para expandir...
Emmett "the Perjurer" Plant for one. It's a tossup between him and Manjaw who would be funniest to hold them over the fire until they recant their affidavits lest they become convicted perjurers.
 
Dumb Bitch Smoothie dijo:
Hope that someone gives that information about 15k being too much to the CoA when that cross appeal comes up.

I hope someone forwards that to Ty/Nick.
Presiona para expandir...

I could be reading it wrong. It seems that the defendants paid their bill on time, so the invoice they got for the end was like "Balance forward: $0.00, New balance: $400" and the idiot from Lemonfurher's firm was like "LOOK, they were only charged $400! That means $15,000 is too much!!!11!!1one"

A complication MoRonica will never have to deal with over the next 15-20 years that it takes them to pay off their bill.
 
HTTP Error 404 dijo:
I could be reading it wrong. It seems that the defendants paid their bill on time, so the invoice they got for the end was like "Balance forward: $0.00, New balance: $400" and the idiot from Lemonfurher's firm was like "LOOK, they were only charged $400! That means $15,000 is too much!!!11!!1one"

A complication MoRonica will never have to deal with over the next 15-20 years that it takes them to pay off their bill.
Presiona para expandir...

I love how they can apparently claim 280K for a TCPA filing.

I'm sure Martinez Hsu would love this info in any fight.
 
Save the Loli dijo:
Emmett "the Perjurer" Plant for one. It's a tossup between him and Manjaw who would be funniest to hold them over the fire until they recant their affidavits lest they become convicted perjurers.
Presiona para expandir...

The Faisals I also doubt as well.

HTTP Error 404 dijo:
I could be reading it wrong. It seems that the defendants paid their bill on time, so the invoice they got for the end was like "Balance forward: $0.00, New balance: $400" and the idiot from Lemonfurher's firm was like "LOOK, they were only charged $400! That means $15,000 is too much!!!11!!1one"

A complication MoRonica will never have to deal with over the next 15-20 years that it takes them to pay off their bill.
Presiona para expandir...

Still, whining about numbers like that isn't a good look.
 
What's with all this talk about cross examinations and stuff?

I mean, we're still probably months away from an appellate court even hearing the case. Even assuming the appellate court actually let's all of the causes of action through, it'll be the rest of pre-trial before it'll even get to an actual courtroom trial.
 
I can't imagine dijo:
What's with all this talk about cross examinations and stuff?

I mean, we're still probably months away from an appellate court even hearing the case. Even assuming the appellate court actually let's all of the causes of action through, it'll be the rest of pre-trial before it'll even get to an actual courtroom trial.
Presiona para expandir...
Like I was told. Not having transcripts is making people very bored and antsy
 
HTTP Error 404 dijo:
archive.ph

Hellberg, Jeffrey - Austin, Dallas, & Fort Worth Attorneys - Wick Phi…

archived 15 Dec 2019 20:37:28 UTC
archive.ph archive.ph

Ver archivo adjunto 1052333

Ver archivo adjunto 1052334

And yes, he's a Super Lawyer.

Here's his legal CV... or maybe just cases he wants to brag about?
  • Golman–Hayden Co., Inc. v. Fresh Source Produce, Inc., 217 F.3d 348 (5th Cir. 2000)
  • In re Azle Manor, 83 S.W.3d 401 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2002, orig. proceeding)
  • All Commercial Floors, Inc. v. Barton & Rasor, 97 S.W.3d 723 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2003, no pet.)
  • Bennett v. Bank United, 114 S.W.3d 75 (Tex. App. – Austin 2003, no pet.)
  • Lewis v. Bank of America, NA, 347 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 2003)
  • Straza v. Friedman, Driegert & Hsueh, LLC., 124 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2003, pet. denied)
  • Pillitteri v. Brown, 165 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2004, no pet.)
  • Smith v. Ferguson, 160 S.W.3d 115 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2005, pet. denied)
  • Gandy Nursery, Inc. v. U.S., 412 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2005)
  • In re Richard Rogers, 200 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2006, orig. proceeding)
  • Gray & Co. Realtors, Inc. v. Atlantic Housing Foundation, Inc., 228 S.W.3d 431 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2007, no pet.)
  • Solares v. Solares, 232 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2007, no pet.)
  • NCP Finance, Ltd. Partnership v. Escatiola, 350 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2011, no pet.)
  • Bendalin v. Youngblood & Associates,381 S.W.3d 719 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2012, pet. denied)
  • American Cancer Soc. v. Cook, 675 F.3d 524 (5th Cir. 2012)
  • Levetz v. Sutton, 404 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2013, pet. denied)
  • Pjetrovic v. 4HG Fannin Investments, LLC., 400 S.W.3d 119 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2013, pet. denied)
  • Palla v. Bio-One, Inc., 424 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2014, no pet.)
  • American Heritage Capital, L.P. v. Gonzalez, 436 S.W.3d 865 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2014, no pet.)
  • Lawyers Title Co. v. J.G. Cooper Development, Inc., 424 S.W.3d 713 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2014, pet. denied)
  • Cuba v. Pylant, 814 F.3d 701 (5th Cir. 2016)
Anything bold I believe is one he lost?

Looking at "American Heritage Capital, L.P. v. Gonzalez", it's a "no pet" (No Petition?), and I see it cited a few times, so... Found it on caselaw: https://cite.case.law/sw3d/436/865/

If I'm reading it right, Hellberg was the American Heritage Capital lawyer. Reading through it... both sides got spanked down.

As an aside, WickPhillips claimed $15,000 was WAY too much to fight... a TCPA and Defamation suit, and thus the defense were awarded excessive legal fees. $400 would be more appropriate, they apparently argued.

The same company is asking for $250,000 now.

Here's Lawyer's Title Co vs J.G. Cooper Development, INC. Hellberg is the Appellee (defense?): https://cite.case.law/sw3d/424/713/

Looks like this one was partially overturned.

I'm just not sure on the terms, and if he "pet. denied" are ones he lost or won or what.
Presiona para expandir...
So Lemonaids messes up the cash cow so now the boss has to step in and hope he can fix it. Where do the other two lawyers mentioned in the motion fit in the lawfirm?
 
I can't imagine dijo:
What's with all this talk about cross examinations and stuff?

I mean, we're still probably months away from an appellate court even hearing the case. Even assuming the appellate court actually let's all of the causes of action through, it'll be the rest of pre-trial before it'll even get to an actual courtroom trial.
Presiona para expandir...

Lemonfuhrer begging to talk about his billing practices and put himself, his clients, and his firm under more scrutiny opens up a new can of worms.
 
Dumb Bitch Smoothie dijo:
Lemonfuhrer begging to talk about his billing practices and put himself, his clients, and his firm under more scrutiny opens up a new can of worms.
Presiona para expandir...

I mean, that's fine and all, but how does that make anybody wind up on the witness stand any faster? That was my point. Unless I'm missing something, his cross-appeal is going to be resolved at the same time as Vic's appeal (well, technically probably afterward, but part of the same process, anyway). So it won't really make anything happen any faster.

Beyond that, the celebration about the cross-appeal is kinda silly. Assuming you believe that Vic's causes of action against MoRon will go through on appeal, literally no part of it matters at all. At that point, the legal fees Vic will owe them are exactly $0 no matter what. If only some of the causes of action go through, the CoA will have to come up with a new number regardless. It only really matters if everything against MoRon still gets dismissed, in which case...Vic lost, but he didn't lose as badly as previously thought; I mean, if you wanna call that a victory, go for it.

Maybe I'm missing something? It just seems like the last few pages of this thread have been a bit odd; like I'm not getting something that everyone else knows.
 
diskboomer dijo:
ViC iS gOiNG tO OwE mOrE In fEeS bIg tImE!

archive.li

Todd DuBois on Twitter: "Even if Vic Mignogna were to win his vindict…

archived 14 Dec 2019 20:34:53 UTC
archive.li archive.li

Ver archivo adjunto 1052055
Presiona para expandir...
Ah yes Greg, just how like Vic was going to be forced to pay a gorillion bajillion dollaroos in the fees and sanctions hearing. That cross appeals gonna be a funny hearing to read, the judges are gonna be like "This is completely unreasonable you weasing weirdo, you're the only one doing this". Least I hope that's what happens, like Chupp telling Lemonhead he seems not confident with the appeals courts, be perfect if it was just the appeals court laughing at the lemon sped in the ways they can. Oh the twists would be funny on that, god I can't wait for these hearings to happen. Great content is upon us, just gotta wait a couple months.
 
Son of Sparda 84 dijo:
Ver archivo adjunto 1052972Ver archivo adjunto 1052973Ver archivo adjunto 1052974Ver archivo adjunto 1052975Ver archivo adjunto 1052976
Presiona para expandir...
Looks at Stan Dalin, Erica's affidavits, and then the nail in the coffin to their whole fantasy, Chris Slatoisch's Unsworn Declaration plus the direct messages from the defendant SHOWING that he did in fact essentially extort the con owner. Yeah, these people are fucking dipshits lying through their teeth.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo