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

[Cin Red]

I don't know. Seems to me to like the series-qualifier canon wins the day here. "And" in the statute creates a conjunctive list and "anyone who is a minor" is a postpositive modifier.

Couldn't it also be argued that "anyone who is a minor" is a postpositive modifier for 1, 2, and 3? They are all part of the same sentence. (Note how 2 ends with an and)

 

[TherapyMan]

The problem is actually that and.

The sentence can be broken down in two ways.

[A birth date], [a home address], [and] [the name of any person who was a minor when the underlying suit was filed].

This is the one you are focusing on, since and then becomes a qualifier to the prior two.
Then we have

[A birth date], [a home address], [and the name of any person who was a minor when the underlying suit was filed].

If read this way, its separate.
You covered why to read it your way but the argument does cut both ways. Normally you'd expectit to be structured differently, such as:

[The birth date], [home address], [and name] [of any person who was a minor when the underlying suit was filed.]

This shows that it is a single, continuous list. Instead, its A birth date, A home address. and then THE name... each of these would, grammatically, indicate seperate things and not be parts of a single continuous list.

The statute is badly written, and can be read in both ways equally easily. I have no idea which is appropriate.

Yes, that is what I was saying. Sorry if I wasn't clear. When it comes to statutory interpretation, judge typically utilize one or more "semantic canons" to help them resolve issues with statutory interpretation like this one in a consistent and clear manner. Some of these semantic canons give conflicting guidance. When I was referring to the "last antecedent canon," that was basically your first example of how the statute can be read. Basically, what the last antecedent canon means that when interpreting a statute, the "last antecedent" (in this case, "the name") is the only aspect of the list modified by subsequent phrase. The "series qualifier" canon supports my read and your second example: when there is a parallel construction of a list, the modifier alters all previous aspects of the list. Basically, when interpreting the statute, a prospective judge would evaluate each of these two canons against each other to see which one conforms more with the ordinary principles of grammar and the overall structure of the statute.

Couldn't it also be argued that "anyone who is a minor" is a postpositive modifier for 1, 2, and 3? They are all part of the same sentence. (Note how 2 ends with an and)

Ver archivo adjunto 1156179

It could, but that wouldn't be a winning argument since it is obvious by the structure of the statute that these sections are meant to be read separately from one another, since they are each in their own subsection. Further, the list in Rule 21c(a)(2) ends with a semicolon, which is an indicator that the list is an independent clause that is meant to be offset from the subsequent list.

 

[AnOminous]

I don't know. Seems to me to like the series-qualifier canon wins the day here. "And" in the statute creates a conjunctive list and "anyone who is a minor" is a postpositive modifier. See Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, 147 (2012) ("When there is a straightforward, parallel construction that involves all nouns of verbs in a series, a prepositive or postpositive modifier normally applies to the entire series."). The last antecedent canon is not an absolute feature of statutory construction, and I think it should be defeated here.

I should have actually read it closely before spouting off. You're right and the 21(c)(a)(3) rule should be interpreted that way.

 

[LuNaS]

Yes, that is what I was saying. Sorry if I wasn't clear. When it comes to statutory interpretation, judge typically utilize one or more "semantic canons" to help them resolve issues with statutory interpretation like this one in a consistent and clear manner. Some of these semantic canons give conflicting guidance. When I was referring to the "last antecedent canon," that was basically your first example of how the statute can be read. Basically, what the last antecedent canon means that when interpreting a statute, the "last antecedent" (in this case, "the name") is the only aspect of the list modified by subsequent phrase. The "series qualifier" canon supports my read and your second example: when there is a parallel construction of a list, the modifier alters all previous aspects of the list. Basically, when interpreting the statute, a prospective judge would evaluate which of these two canons against each other to see which one conforms more with the ordinary principles of grammar and the overall structure of the statute.



It could, but that wouldn't be a winning argument since it is obvious by the structure of the statute that these sections are meant to be read separately from one another, since they are each in their own subsection. Further, the list in Rule 21c(a)(2) ends with a semicolon, which is an indicator that the list is an independent clause that is meant to be offset from the subsequent list.

I would chime in, but english without the technical legal language is already a birch and a half, so I'm not going to meddle in this. I'm only going to say that I am less surprised about there being guidelines for parsing legal speak that I should be.

Please ignore the following if you don't care about rants about the English language and how stupid it can be.

Spoiler: Freaking English

who decided it would be a good idea to have THIS and THESE be almost homophones? And that is probably one of my most minor grievances with the damn language.

Also why don't you use ¿ To start a question and then ? To end it, seriously is it really worth not writing one character for the cost of not knowing when the stupid question actually starts? Or is there an actual reasoning behind not using ¿ Hell Spanish uses ¿ And ? And in Spanish there are accents that modify words when they are part of a question.

 

[AnOminous]

I would chime in, but english without the technical legal language is already a birch and a half, so I'm not going to meddle in this. I'm only going to say that I am less surprised about there being guidelines for parsing legal speak that I should be.

Here's a short intro to some of the basic ones:

Statutory interpretation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They're mostly old enough to have Latin names.

Courts assume people who write laws know these canons and that what they write will be read in accordance with them.

The "fun" comes when legislators actually don't and the result of applying normal rules of construction to them leads to absurd results.

 

[AnIncredibleDerp]

Okay, after reading it, I'm not particularly happy about it. In fact, I think it's pretty bad.

It looks to me like they're completely putting all their eggs into the 2AP, even for shit that they can prove that was already in the record before then. Do they even mention the Ron Toye texts to Slatosch once or just rely on the affidavit/sworn declaration?

 

[Adach_Ame]

Okay, after reading it, I'm not particularly happy about it. In fact, I think it's pretty bad.

It looks to me like they're completely putting all their eggs into the 2AP, even for shit that they can prove that was already in the record before then. Do they even mention the Ron Toye texts to Slatosch once or just rely on the affidavit/sworn declaration?

Text limits are a bitch and a half.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Okay, after reading it, I'm not particularly happy about it. In fact, I think it's pretty bad.

It looks to me like they're completely putting all their eggs into the 2AP, even for shit that they can prove that was already in the record before then. Do they even mention the Ron Toye texts to Slatosch once or just rely on the affidavit/sworn declaration?

They have to fit as much as they could into as little amount of space as possible. Any nuance required would have to be brought up in oral arguments.

 

[HighwayStar]

Okay, after reading it, I'm not particularly happy about it. In fact, I think it's pretty bad.

It looks to me like they're completely putting all their eggs into the 2AP, even for shit that they can prove that was already in the record before then. Do they even mention the Ron Toye texts to Slatosch once or just rely on the affidavit/sworn declaration?

I think they want to focus on the main meat of the issue here, which was why Chupp made numerous errors with how the TCPA went and that they should be reversed. Also the word limit makes it virtually impossible to include every single detail of the lawsuit and present it in a clearcut manner.

Nick himself said that they should’ve included the argument on the contingency fees, which is fine but then what would you need to remove from the brief? There’s a reason why it’s called a brief: they want it short, concise and get to the point.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

I think focusing on the 2ap is a strong choice actuallly.

 

[774]

It's exceptionally poorly worded, since it can easily be read as either "(a, b, and c) for which d is true" or "a, b, and (c for which d is true)". At least for ease of interpretation, it should either say either "Name (in the case of a minor), date of birth, and home address" or "If the named is a minor, then: name, date of birth, and home address".

Or, you know, just break out the part that applies to a minor into a subparagraph (4). It'd be pretty clear then, if that was their intention.

Spoiler: ¿

who decided it would be a good idea to have THIS and THESE be almost homophones? And that is probably one of my most minor grievances with the damn language.

No one decides things like that. It's just how the language evolved over many centuries. Also, I'm not sure I agree they're almost homophones. The vowels are different, and the "s" is voiced in one and unvoiced in the other. Native speakers like myself have no trouble distinguishing them. It's pretty much just a problem for some non-native speakers, probably because of difficulty with the different phonology (the vowels in the two are fairly distinct). In any case, there are plenty of other problems with the language that are more fundamental, IMO.

Also why don't you use ¿ To start a question and then ? To end it, seriously is it really worth not writing one character for the cost of not knowing when the stupid question actually starts? Or is there an actual reasoning behind not using ¿ Hell Spanish uses ¿ And ? And in Spanish there are accents that modify words when they are part of a question.

You could ask this question of almost every language other than Spanish. A better question would be, why do Spanish and a handful of others influenced by it have such a thing, when most others get along just fine without it? Seriously, I can almost always tell when a question is starting, just by the wording. Yeah, there are questions worded like statements (with a meaning like, "It sounds to me like [thing I want to confirm]. Is this true?"), but they aren't really a problem, as long as I can see there's a question mark on the end, which is usually the case.

 

[AnOminous]

It looks to me like they're completely putting all their eggs into the 2AP, even for shit that they can prove that was already in the record before then. Do they even mention the Ron Toye texts to Slatosch once or just rely on the affidavit/sworn declaration?

Do you have access to the 5 volume clerk's record? Unless you do, you don't know what the footnotes are citing. They don't specifically cite to a document. They cite multiple locations, and I'd bet the citation to a 2 page spread is the DMs and the lengthier ones are to Vic's deposition and declaration as well as the Slatosch declaration.

I think focusing on the 2ap is a strong choice actuallly.

Hsu seems fairly certain it will be considered and I assume he has some reason for that. Sometimes you have to put all your eggs in one basket. We'll see whether it pays off.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Hsu seems fairly certain it will be considered and I assume he has some reason for that. Sometimes you have to put all your eggs in one basket. We'll see whether it pays off.

I'm with him, I've held that the courts denial of the 2ap or refusal to consider it or whatever had no basis in law. The only argument people have is that you can't do it before a trial without leave of the court, the rule 63 argument.

I don't see it in there, and I assume it will be in the response from the defendants, that the TCPA hearing is a trial will have to be the respondent's argument. The fact that Chupp excluded it under rule 66 as well despite there being no evidence of surprise, which should have to be provided, is also problematic for the argument that the 2ap wasn't allowed in. What evidence of surprise was presented? None. Chupp just decided there was surprise because of... Reasons? Its a totally unreasonable and illogical denial.

I think its a pretty hard to rebut argument here that Chupp wasn't just wrong, he was dead wrong on it as a matter of law.

 

[teriyakiburns]

I'm with him, I've held that the courts denial of the 2ap or refusal to consider it or whatever had no basis in law.

The legendary lemon-scented love letters would tend to support your position.

 

[diskboomer]

The legendary lemon-scented love letters would tend to support your position.

“Please Chupp-sama, pretty please strike the second amended petition! You never struck it, and it’s devastating to our defence, please please strike it.
Please sign this proposed order in this ex-parte letter! This cannot be allowed to remain as part of the record.”

Hell, Bullock had to ask the Clerk to add the first amended petition into the record a week ago; as it seems even they no longer had it, because the second amended petition replaced it in the record. If it was struck it wouldn’t have been there.

 

[774]

Hell, Bullock had to ask the Clerk to add the first amended petition into the record a week ago; as it seems even they no longer had it, because the second amended petition replaced it in the record. If it was struck it wouldn’t have been there.

And yet they did have them (both the original and first amended petitions, which were both left out) when requested. No, clearly, it wasn't because they didn't have them. They just either missed them, or didn't think they needed to be in the record for the CoA, for some reason.

 

[Garm]

And yet they did have them (both the original and first amended petitions, which were both left out) when requested. No, clearly, it wasn't because they didn't have them. They just either missed them, or didn't think they needed to be in the record for the CoA, for some reason.

The whole thing was odd because given Chupp's method of jurisprudence, everything he does should be sent to appeals. His clerk should know appeals protocol by heart.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

I think focusing on the 2ap is a strong choice actuallly.

It's also reasonable. Chupp let Ty go on and on about the 2AP without even letting him know then that he wasn't going to consider it, and even saying that he likely would.

 

[Scarlett Johansson]

The legendary lemon-scented love letters would tend to support your position.

This is a real thing?

 

[774]

This is a real thing?

Referring to Lemoine's ex parte letters to Chupp. You can find them somewhere in this thread, just as you can the formal filings.