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

Destacado
5t3n0g0ph3r dijo:
Apparently, the CoA says the shenanigans that MoRon pulled is fine.
Whatever. The quicker this moot point in the appeals is done, the better.
Presiona para expandir...
diskboomer dijo:
Seriously, what is the point in the TRCP, and Appellette rules if parties can just shit all over them, and nothing is done about it.

This isn't like accidentally being over the word count by 50-100 words. Funimation is 33% over the word count, and MoRon is at double it.

Mental stuff.
Presiona para expandir...
I don’t know if it’s true. I mean, filing a brief and having it read are two separate things. Chupp didn’t complain about the 2AP until the day of the hearing and the petition was filed week beforehand. Just because it’s in the system doesn’t mean the appellate court read it immediately.

I will say that I hope Ty’s legal team get more aggressive and that the appellate court doesn’t pull a Chupp on this, because honestly, I’m sick of this bullshit and I’m sure you are too.
 
Riku dijo:
Dearly hope in a nice reply from Vic's team, all 3 defendantds briefs had some type of error/lie/defamation in it that could easily be answered and I hope it is, those scumbags really need to have their asses handled to them. Nice to know at least the wait won't be too long, 20/04 is quite close anyway.
Presiona para expandir...
The cross appeal brief is only on MoRon's cross appeal, that is, their whining about fees. Nothing yet on Vic's replies to the appellee briefs.
 
OneHandClapping dijo:
The cross appeal brief is only on MoRon's cross appeal, that is, their whining about fees. Nothing yet on Vic's replies to the appellee briefs.
Presiona para expandir...
Then I hope the eternally-engaged Morons are the first blood with all the others following down later. If Vic's team want to end this asap they really need to go scorching earth, but then I hope that the CoA isn't composed of likes of Chupp, one is more than enough to screw the case.
 
Kosher Salt dijo:
Yeah, and that was actually only issued by the court's clerk. I doubt it'd be the clerk's place to possibly prejudice a party's case by rejecting their filing over some pedantic procedural BS.
Presiona para expandir...

It's not procedural BS if they get an unfair advantage by just ignoring the rules and submitting longer arguments than Vic gets to make. It forces Vic into the position of having to defend against extra bullshit in fewer words.

MoRon are two parties and filing two briefs as one document, which might give them more words, but I'm not sure what Funimation's excuse is. Either way they should move to strike their briefs as if they'd defaulted if there is any basis to do so. After all, they're on the record as arguing that Chupp was entirely correct to do that in the lower court.
 
AnOminous dijo:
It's not procedural BS if they get an unfair advantage by just ignoring the rules and submitting longer arguments than Vic gets to make. It forces Vic into the position of having to defend against extra bullshit in fewer words.

MoRon are two parties and filing two briefs as one document, which might give them more words, but I'm not sure what Funimation's excuse is. Either way they should move to strike their briefs as if they'd defaulted if there is any basis to do so. After all, they're on the record as arguing that Chupp was entirely correct to do that in the lower court.
Presiona para expandir...
Oh, I am fully aware that procedural BS is very important in the appeals court. That's basically what they're there for... you're not allowed to give them any new facts or arguments; it's almost like they exist solely to sift through the pedantic procedural BS between the existing law, arguments, and facts, and decide whether the trial court fucked it up. My point was just that when the procedural BS is going to require the court to either grant them an unrequested extension to their word limit, or give them an extension of time to condense their response and re-file it, or tell them that they've screwed themselves out of their chance to respond at all, I think it'd fall on a judge's shoulders to issue that, not the clerk. The clerk's just there to say "yes, we received it" or maybe tell them to fix something really simple, like forgetting to put the case number on the title page.

I don't think the clerk's response to their over-lengthy response, telling them that it had been filed, should be assumed to be an implied extension to their word count, or any hint as to whether the court would be inclined to grant one since they didn't ask for it.
 
Kosher Salt dijo:
I don't think the clerk's response to their over-lengthy response, telling them that it had been filed, should be assumed to be an implied extension to their word count, or any hint as to whether the court would be inclined to grant one since they didn't ask for it.
Presiona para expandir...

If you're going to exceed word limit without asking leave in advance, you should include the motion to do so in the brief that is exceeding word limit. Which is to say don't do that, but if you must, don't just ignore the fact you're doing it and expect it to slide.
 
AnOminous dijo:
It's not procedural BS if they get an unfair advantage by just ignoring the rules and submitting longer arguments than Vic gets to make. It forces Vic into the position of having to defend against extra bullshit in fewer words.

MoRon are two parties and filing two briefs as one document, which might give them more words, but I'm not sure what Funimation's excuse is. Either way they should move to strike their briefs as if they'd defaulted if there is any basis to do so. After all, they're on the record as arguing that Chupp was entirely correct to do that in the lower court.
Presiona para expandir...

Point of order: By filing a single brief as one document without any request to consider it as two, have they not then defacto and legally waived their right to file two briefs? Or, to reiterate, should it not be thus considered as a single brief -because- they filed it as one?
 
Gehenna dijo:
Point of order: By filing a single brief as one document without any request to consider it as two, have they not then defacto and legally waived their right to file two briefs? Or, to reiterate, should it not be thus considered as a single brief -because- they filed it as one?
Presiona para expandir...

No. It's proper to file both documents due on the same date under the same cover and doesn't prejudice them in any way.
 
Gehenna dijo:
Point of order: By filing a single brief as one document without any request to consider it as two, have they not then defacto and legally waived their right to file two briefs? Or, to reiterate, should it not be thus considered as a single brief -because- they filed it as one?
Presiona para expandir...
Well, they did request to consider it as two... it's in the title; "appellees’/cross-appellants’ brief." It's both the appellee's brief and the cross-appellants' brief.

The issue is that those are two separate appeals (one is Vic's appeal of Chupp's dismissal of his claims, and the other is MoRon's cross-appeal of Chupp's fee ruling which gave them less fees and sanctions than they requested). They have two separate word counts. It's not at all clear whether they should just get to pool their total word count since they're filing both briefs in one document.

This can't be the first time it's ever happened, though... I wonder what the established precedent says about it.
 
Kosher Salt dijo:
The issue is that those are two separate appeals (one is Vic's appeal of Chupp's dismissal of his claims, and the other is MoRon's cross-appeal of Chupp's fee ruling which gave them less fees and sanctions than they requested). They have two separate word counts. It's not at all clear whether they should just get to pool their total word count since they're filing both briefs in one document.
Presiona para expandir...

The advantage would be in shifting words from the dumb, pointless fee appeal to the actual substantive brief.
 
AnOminous dijo:
If you're going to exceed word limit without asking leave in advance, you should include the motion to do so in the brief that is exceeding word limit. Which is to say don't do that, but if you must, don't just ignore the fact you're doing it and expect it to slide.
Presiona para expandir...

I hope Martinez Hsu hammer them on vastly exceeding the word limits.
It's bullshit, and Ty has been an idiot letting them get away with far too much the past year.
 
AnOminous dijo:
The advantage would be in shifting words from the dumb, pointless fee appeal to the actual substantive brief.
Presiona para expandir...
That said... it seems kind of like an unnecessary risk. Their actual brief is, as you said, substantive. If they had just requested a word count increase, they were almost guaranteed to get one, right? Why risk getting egg on their faces again?

We've already seen them simply assume that the appellate process worked in a manner convenient to them by expecting their cross-appeal schedule to just automatically dovetail into Vic's appeal schedule, completely ignoring the statutory deadline for their cross-appeal brief, only to be told by the court that it doesn't actually work that way - not automatically, in any case. Sure, they might've thought that they'd just skate by without anyone noticing, but the court was on top of it and they probably ended up burning some capital that they might need for future emergencies. All they had to do was request that extension ahead of time; only LawTwitter would act like that's a bad look, and LawTwitter's in their pockets already anyway.

That seems to be emerging as a habit, and it seems like it could really end up biting them hard.
 
Kosher Salt dijo:
That seems to be emerging as a habit, and it seems like it could really end up biting them hard.
Presiona para expandir...

I hope their record of playing fast and loose with the facts and the rules and the law catches up with them. For that matter, I hope the appeals court remembers past acts of Chuppery and treats his bullshit with all the derision it deserves as well.
 
diskboomer dijo:
I hope Martinez Hsu hammer them on vastly exceeding the word limits.
It's bullshit, and Ty has been an idiot letting them get away with far too much the past year.
Presiona para expandir...
Well, according to @Spectre_06 , aka “Mr. Reliable”, Nick apparently told Ty about this and he was apparently not in a very “forgiving mood”. It would be nice, though, if Spectre would clarify where he got this information (i.e. Discord, a text message, etc.), something he still hasn’t done yet.
 
HighwayStar dijo:
Well, according to @Spectre_06 , aka “Mr. Reliable”, Nick apparently told Ty about this and he was apparently not in a very “forgiving mood”. It would be nice, though, if Spectre would clarify where he got this information (i.e. Discord, a text message, etc.), something he still hasn’t done yet.
Presiona para expandir...

Probably because my happy ass was asleep. As for the location, it was in the voice chat with KingBrawly, Rackets, and myself after the Twitch stream last night when we played Vermintide. I've sent him a DM on Discord to give you some visual confirmation but seriously, God was more active during the Holocaust than Nick is on Discord.
 
HighwayStar dijo:
Well, according to @Spectre_06 , aka “Mr. Reliable”, Nick apparently told Ty about this and he was apparently not in a very “forgiving mood”. It would be nice, though, if Spectre would clarify where he got this information (i.e. Discord, a text message, etc.), something he still hasn’t done yet.
Presiona para expandir...
Spectre won't, he'll just hang out on our shoulders, kicking us in the head and trying to get our attention.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo