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

Destacado
AnOminous dijo:
That's not entirely accurate.

"(B) A brief and response in an appellate court (other than a brief under subparagraph (A)) and a petition and response in an original proceeding in the court of appeals: 15,000 words if computer-generated, and 50 pages if not. In a civil case in the court of appeals, the aggregate of all briefs filed by a party must not exceed 27,000 words if computer-generated, and 90 pages if not."

That's 27,000 pages total, for all filings. You're always going to save some for sur-replies to whatever the other side tries to sneak in.

Also, this would be 27,000 for each appeal. The defendants are cross appealing.

And probably both parties will file to exceed word limits.

"Extensions. A court may, on motion, permit a document that exceeds the prescribed limit."

It's all in the rules. TRAP 9.4 has all the formalities.
Presiona para expandir...
Is that 27000 words for each count or defendant or the entire appeal.

Only Moron are cross appealing right?
 
DragoonSierra dijo:
Is that 27000 words for each count or defendant or the entire appeal.

Only Moron are cross appealing right?
Presiona para expandir...

It's for any party for the entire appeal. The appeals court will almost certainly extend the limit given the complexity of the case, the number of defendants, the sheer number of points of appeal that are obvious on the face of the record, and the importance of actually getting it right.
 
AnOminous dijo:
It's for any party for the entire appeal. The appeals court will almost certainly extend the limit given the complexity of the case, the number of defendants, the sheer number of points of appeal that are obvious on the face of the record, and the importance of actually getting it right.
Presiona para expandir...
So an requesting an extension seems like a good idea then?
 
AnOminous dijo:
Chupp did not make his decision on the costs and fees on the pleadings, but upon an hours long evidentiary hearing, which presumably determined questions of fact, clearly making findings of fact and conclusions of law proper.
Presiona para expandir...
Not... necessarily. At no point in the actual hearing did Chupp actually rule on anything. This is, in fact, something you have noted is an appeal point for the TCPA ruling as to whether stuff was in or out of the record. Weirdly and mindbogglingly, Chupp can truthfully state "We had a hearing, but no findings of facts or conclusions of law were reached".

its like the man has two settings, "Shoot from the Hip" and "All decisions from the bench are AIDS".
 
Gehenna dijo:
Not... necessarily. At no point in the actual hearing did Chupp actually rule on anything. This is, in fact, something you have noted is an appeal point for the TCPA ruling as to whether stuff was in or out of the record. Weirdly and mindbogglingly, Chupp can truthfully state "We had a hearing, but no findings of facts or conclusions of law were reached".
Presiona para expandir...

He took evidence and testimony from multiple witnesses, and did not just rule without a hearing based on the pleadings. It is generally presumed under these circumstances that the actual decision was based, somehow, on the evidence taken. The result of having based it on nothing would be it would be entitled to no deference, which it might not be anyway. The actual impact of Chupp not having produced the document may be nothing whether or not it was required.

The court also referenced "the evidence of the parties" in its final judgment.
 

Archivos adjuntos

  • Xom.jpg
    Xom.jpg
    27.5 KB · Vistas: 226
OneHandClapping dijo:
Since this thread is dead as we await the appeals brief, here's some not really interesting non-news. Back in early January ReSearch TX had four pages for Mignogna lawsuit




Now they're down to two. In fact, "Melissa Mignogna" appears in three entries of her own.

Ver archivo adjunto 1132484
Presiona para expandir...
So they finally grouped the suit into one, and there's the appeal. Neat.
 
774 dijo:
Also, when should they do so? Wouldn't this be a bit like asking for a time extension, where if you do it at the last second and they say no, you have a problem? Would it be as bad?
Presiona para expandir...
As I understood it the word limit is for the whole appeal process, so they may not ask for the word extension until they respond to the defendants briefs.
 
What do people think of handling Chupp like he's an appeals court judge? Just point him at what is absolutely essential?

Or if your cynical, come up with a 30 second "elevator pitch" for the lawsuit.
 
Garm dijo:
What do people think of handling Chupp like he's an appeals court judge?
Presiona para expandir...

Appeals court judges are expected to read entire case files and understand them. They do everything they do on paper and have to justify it in a written opinion.

That would be like treating Chupp like he's a dressage horse and expecting him to jump over hurdles.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo