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

Destacado
Kosher Salt dijo:
I could see how explaining the error in the trial court's ruling would be helpful in finding the correct ruling... if the trial court had maybe explained its ruling. Chupp didn't explain shit. He just dumped a steaming pile and called it final.
Presiona para expandir...

It doesn't really matter how the court reached the wrong conclusion.

In a more typical case, to an abuse of discretion standard or appealing a mixed question of fact and law, it would be absolutely critical how the trial court reached its decision because you might very well need a specific kind of error by the trial court to invalidate its decision. The appeals court might need an abuse of discretion before it even considered whether the decision was right or wrong.

Ordinarily, an appeals court does not simply substitute its own judgment for the trial court's, but instead defers to the trial court's fact finding, if such a decision is not against the weight of the evidence of record or is not something like "clear error." If the trial court adequately cites to the record, and the conclusions of law are rationally connected to those factual findings, then its decision stands and, this is important, even if the judges on the appellate panel personally would have reached another conclusion.

In such a case, going into a recitation of how the trial court did what it did would not be just something nice to include, it would be necessary before the appeals court even considered reversing it.

In this case, it would be a waste of precious words in a case with 17 causes of action in which even a concise and almost laconic presentation of the points of error consumed 11,571 words, when a party is limited to 15,000 words for their entire case. This represents reserving 3,429 words for any sur-reply.

So when someone says something should have been included, especially when it would be irrelevant and contribute nothing, I have to ask them what exactly would they cut to make room for this thing they say should have been included?

(That also applies to Nick's criticism about not including arguments about Chupp's ridiculous contingency fees on appeal which he had no jurisdiction to make imo, even if he isn't the first judge to have done this seemingly bizarre thing.)
 
Kosher Salt dijo:
I could see how explaining the error in the trial court's ruling would be helpful in finding the correct ruling... if the trial court had maybe explained its ruling. Chupp didn't explain shit. He just dumped a steaming pile and called it final.

I don't know how you deal with that except just starting from scratch and explaining what the correct ruling would've been.
Presiona para expandir...

You're right, and this is why (in my humble opinion), the issue presented headings shouldn't have couched the issue in "The trial court's x is reversible error." It misleads the reader into assuming that the topic of discussion will be an analysis on the sufficiency of the trial court's ruling. If I were to write the brief, I would probably couch the argument using something like:

"I. Appellant Provided "Clear and Specific Evidence" of his Defamation Claim Against All Appellees"

Yet the way Ty and Co. have written the argument, the same argument is: "The trial court's dismissing Appellant's claims against Appellees for defamation is reversible error." Along with being sort of awkwardly constructed, this sort of phrasing misleadingly implies that the subject of dispute will be whether or not the trial court's decision-making process was reversible error, rather than what it really is about, which is the legal sufficiency of the pleadings. My opinion, however, is if you're going to frame the argument as "the trial court fucked up," then it somewhat behooves you to include in your brief the specific manner in which the trial court has fucked up.
 
@AnOminous That's fair... the only thing I'd really be concerned about is whether the appeals court might still be inclined to defer to the trial court even though it's supposed to re-do the decision from scratch. If Chupp's reasoning had seemed reasonable, they might have walked into this looking for reasons not to affirm it.

I don't think Chupp gave us much fear of that in this case, but it's a thing that generally could happen...
 
Ah, good old people giving their two cents on the case while sounding like an authority.

What that crazy cat lady, Nick, Douchette or even AnOminous say matters little in the grand scheme of things. The only important thing is what the appeals court's conclusion is.

Though it does give some fun drama to see clashing opinions and bad takes over bad takes.
 
Kosher Salt dijo:
If Chupp's reasoning had seemed reasonable, they might have walked into this looking for reasons not to affirm it.

I don't think Chupp gave us much fear of that in this case, but it's a thing that generally could happen...
Presiona para expandir...
That's something that, I think, the appealees are going to try and argue. Not only did Chupp not really explain why he ruled the way he did, he also didn't explain why the fees came out the way they did. No doubt they're going to begin their appeal of the fees by pointing out that Chupp failed to respond to a request for fact finding regarding the fees, and that would open the door to a sub-response from the appealant's side about how he didn't really explain his ruling.

This CoA's bitten Chupp before for a few reasons, so it's not like they'd be going to automatically start deferring to him just because he's in teir jurisdiction.
 
TherapyMan dijo:
You're right, and this is why (in my humble opinion), the issue presented headings shouldn't have couched the issue in "The trial court's x is reversible error." It misleads the reader into assuming that the topic of discussion will be an analysis on the sufficiency of the trial court's ruling. If I were to write the brief, I would probably couch the argument using something like:

"I. Appellant Provided "Clear and Specific Evidence" of his Defamation Claim Against All Appellees"
Presiona para expandir...

I agree with this even though it's technically accurate. The fact that any error is reversible under the standard of review makes it surplusage, although words in the mandatory ToC don't count toward the total. Also there isn't a section on standard of review, which is an odd omission to say the least since it's such a favorable standard of review.

I'm sure the appeals court knows the standard of review and that every judge on the panel has written at least one TCPA appeal. Still, it should be there. That should be the opening of the analysis.
 
Kendrick dijo:
Ah, good old people giving their two cents on the case while sounding like an authority.

What that crazy cat lady, Nick, Douchette or even AnOminous say matters little in the grand scheme of things. The only important thing is what the appeals court's conclusion is.

Though it does give some fun drama to see clashing opinions and bad takes over bad takes.
Presiona para expandir...
What do you think the point of this forum is?

I don’t think it’s a revelation to anyone here that shit posting and speculating on an anonymous forum is not a serious and important grand gesture.
 
Imperial Agent dijo:
What do you think the point of this forum is?

I don’t think it’s a revelation to anyone here that shit posting and speculating on an anonymous forum is not a serious and important grand gesture.
Presiona para expandir...
I agree with you.

And to answer your question: to quote opinions, to give opinions, and to laugh at the r.etarded ones. Grab lolcows' history and have fun with all the bad takes.

I'm just saying, people should stop flaunting takes like it's the gospel. Even if I like AnOminous and Nick's takes sometimes (their afinity with law is a plus), I just don't go claiming that anything that deviates from it is wrong and shouldn't be considered... Like lawtwits are doing all over twitter.
 
20200221_122936.jpg

20200221_122948.jpg
20200221_123404.jpg
20200221_123417.jpg
20200221_123427.jpg
20200221_123439.jpg

20200221_123453.jpg
20200221_123503.jpg
20200221_123515.jpg
20200221_123529.jpg
20200221_123544.jpg
20200221_123556.jpg
 
 
Garm dijo:
God damn Twitter is fucking useless as a method of communication. It doesn't help this twat is being disengenous.
Presiona para expandir...
I mean, I can see some good points in here (Like summarizing better in the Issues Presented section, providing both the error and what it is in summarized form) but much of its just... fluff.
 
Son of Sparda 84 dijo:
Ver archivo adjunto 1155371
Ver archivo adjunto 1155374Ver archivo adjunto 1155376Ver archivo adjunto 1155377Ver archivo adjunto 1155378Ver archivo adjunto 1155379
Ver archivo adjunto 1155383Ver archivo adjunto 1155388Ver archivo adjunto 1155390Ver archivo adjunto 1155391Ver archivo adjunto 1155392Ver archivo adjunto 1155393
Presiona para expandir...
Well, she makes it easy to dismiss anything she has to say: applying Oregon standards to Texas is like applying India standards to Whales.

Gehenna dijo:
I mean, I can see some good points in here (Like summarizing better in the Issues Presented section, providing both the error and what it is in summarized form) but much of its just... fluff.
Presiona para expandir...
Wordcount makes that absolutely untenable. You can't waste words repeating yourself so many times. Give your position, and explain it in it's approriate location.
 
Kendrick dijo:
Well, she makes it easy to dismiss anything she has to say: applying Oregon standards to Texas is like applying India standards to Whales.


Wordcount makes that absolutely untenable. You can't waste words repeating yourself so many times. Give your position, and explain it in it's approriate location.
Presiona para expandir...
Not necessarily, the impact is fairly minimal and primes the appellate court on what to see. This can save them time figuring out your point, ensure they understand it immediately, and makes it easier for them to cite to when they are reviewing it. For a net effect of maybe 3-5 words per cause of action you can significantly improve the readability and expectations for the appellate judges.

lets take an example:
"The trial court's refusal to consider Appelent's Second Amended petition is reversible error". 13 words
Compared to
"The trial court abused its discretion and misapplied controlling law when it rejected the 2AP" 15 words, 17 if you make it Second Amended Petition. You could also probably make this shorter with
"The trial court abused its discretion and misapplied law with the second amended petition rejection" 14 words, one more than what was in the document.

Now, that is not to say all her... recommendations are good. Where as this one adds at most 50 words, some of the others on here would just be absolutely asinine.
 
I don't think any of those actually more informative. Just a personal take, conciseness is golden.
 
Gehenna dijo:
Not necessarily, the impact is fairly minimal and primes the appellate court on what to see. This can save them time figuring out your point, ensure they understand it immediately, and makes it easier for them to cite to when they are reviewing it. For a net effect of maybe 3-5 words per cause of action you can significantly improve the readability and expectations for the appellate judges.

lets take an example:
"The trial court's refusal to consider Appelent's Second Amended petition is reversible error". 13 words
Compared to
"The trial court abused its discretion and misapplied controlling law when it rejected the 2AP" 15 words, 17 if you make it Second Amended Petition. You could also probably make this shorter with
"The trial court abused its discretion and misapplied law with the second amended petition rejection" 14 words, one more than what was in the document.

Now, that is not to say all her... recommendations are good. Where as this one adds at most 50 words, some of the others on here would just be absolutely asinine.
Presiona para expandir...
You have to be careful about technicalities. You don't want to use your remaining words in your response to explain you you used "rejected the 2ap" instead of "refusal to consider the 2ap". It sounds similar but they have different consequences.
 
Of course her username is "cat whisperer" I swear to god every fucking lawltwit is a walking stereotype for something (xcept lemwah, he's a special boye.) If I didn't know any better I'd ask for a Poe check.
 
Kendrick dijo:
You have to be careful about technicalities. You don't want to use your remaining words in your response to explain you you used "rejected the 2ap" instead of "refusal to consider the 2ap". It sounds similar but they have different consequences.
Presiona para expandir...
Also you generally want to frame arguments in your response in a way that portrays your point in good connotation, rejected has a different connotation than refused to consider.

Just straight up saying 'It is reversable error' in the heading sidesteps a lot of that, and they can develop it in the arguments.
 
Son of Sparda 84 dijo:
Ver archivo adjunto 1155371
Ver archivo adjunto 1155374Ver archivo adjunto 1155376Ver archivo adjunto 1155377Ver archivo adjunto 1155378Ver archivo adjunto 1155379
Ver archivo adjunto 1155383Ver archivo adjunto 1155388Ver archivo adjunto 1155390Ver archivo adjunto 1155391Ver archivo adjunto 1155392Ver archivo adjunto 1155393
Presiona para expandir...
If she wasnt such a biased cunt I'd consider her opinion more. When you're persona is the typical far left liberal lady, thinking they are objective, you're a fucking coo-koo away from the nut house.

It's interesting and probably a better take than uncle uncivil, but still miles off being on the same level as the litigators in the case.
 
Gehenna dijo:
Not necessarily, the impact is fairly minimal and primes the appellate court on what to see. This can save them time figuring out your point, ensure they understand it immediately, and makes it easier for them to cite to when they are reviewing it. For a net effect of maybe 3-5 words per cause of action you can significantly improve the readability and expectations for the appellate judges.

lets take an example:
"The trial court's refusal to consider Appelent's Second Amended petition is reversible error". 13 words
Compared to
"The trial court abused its discretion and misapplied controlling law when it rejected the 2AP" 15 words, 17 if you make it Second Amended Petition. You could also probably make this shorter with
"The trial court abused its discretion and misapplied law with the second amended petition rejection" 14 words, one more than what was in the document.
Presiona para expandir...

Holy fuck this cunt is stupid.

She STILL doesn't know this is not an abuse of discretion review! How much bullshit is this idiot going to spew without even knowing the applicable standard of review?

This isn't an Oregon versus Texas thing, this is a not having the foggiest fucking clue what you're talking about thing.

This isn't even just not knowing the specific statute, either. Even a complete idiot could have figured out this is a summary disposition prior to trial based on the law. That's how anti-SLAPP usually is. So it would be akin to an FRCP 12(b)(6) ruling, which I'm pretty sure they have in the Ninth Circuit, or even an FRCP 56 summary judgment.

And the applicable standard would be de novo for either of those.

This is just stupidity from this senile, stupid woman.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo