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

[Iron Hamster]

It's hilarious that not one of these 'lawyers' has stated all the defendants had to do was file a TCPA immediately and all this would be gone. And they won't address the fishing expedition the defense put on to try and find more to smear Vic with. How do any of these tards have clients when they have no idea what it is like to actually operate in the best interest of that client?

 

[AnOminous]

It just baffles me that they think a TCPA expert cost 5 times as a regular lawyer. If your an expert at most you would cost the same or cheaper due to being an EXPERT!!!

Just curious @AnOminous , what do Lawfirms usually do in a situation that Lemonaids got himself into? I mean using Thousands of the firms resources (on not related stuff also) and then dumping it on the clients after most likely promising they wont pay a penny?

I have no idea what Lemongrab told the clients, or what Wick Phillips was expecting to happen, although I don't think this was it.

 

[Urbanmech]

I have no idea what Lemongrab told the clients, or what Wick Phillips was expecting to happen, although I don't think this was it.

Yea just curious in your years of experience seen/heard something like this happening and the end result.

 

[LawTwitter is Dumb]

I have no idea what Lemongrab told the clients, or what Wick Phillips was expecting to happen, although I don't think this was it.

you *wheeze* won't have to pay a dime and Vic will pay so much we can actually *wheeze* pay you and take all his assets and money by inflating costs *wheeze*

 

[RodgerDodger]

Yea just curious in your years of experience seen/heard something like this happening and the end result.

Court awarded attorney fees will often be way less than what the billing is. But you need an extra special "expert" lawyer to swear to the Judge that he is in fact going to bill you the full amount.

 

[AlexJonesGotMePregnant]

Court awarded attorney fees will often be way less than what the billing is. But you need an extra special "expert" lawyer to swear to the Judge that he is in fact going to bill you the full amount.

He would have known that if he'd won any TCPAs before.

 

[Laundui_or_douchette?]

It just baffles me that they think a TCPA expert cost 5 times as a regular lawyer. If your an expert at most you would cost the same or cheaper due to being an EXPERT!!!

Just curious @AnOminous , what do Lawfirms usually do in a situation that Lemonaids got himself into? I mean using Thousands of the firms resources (on not related stuff also) and then dumping it on the clients after most likely promising they wont pay a penny?

That’s not how being an expert works. An expert should cost more, as you are paying for a specialised service. However, that expert should be able to do things faster and more efficient than someone who is not.

 

[Dumb Bitch Smoothie]

Lemoine has been practicing law for almost 20 years according to when he took his bar and still has about a toilet bowl's worth of work to show for it.

Expert.

 

[instythot]

I have no idea what Lemongrab told the clients, or what Wick Phillips was expecting to happen, although I don't think this was it.

Him suggesting strongly that fees will be covered by the award/sanction would be dangerously close to malpractice, if not actual malpractice, no?

 

[East_Clintwood]

It just baffles me that they think a TCPA expert cost 5 times as a regular lawyer. If your an expert at most you would cost the same or cheaper due to being an EXPERT!!!

That's not really true. Experts usually cost more to account for the extra training/experience they have, combined with the fact they're generally rarer than the baseline. That being said paying more for a "TCPA expert" is dumb because the entire point of TCPA is getting rid of BS cases with a minimum of cost, which is something any halfway competent regular attorney should be able to do.

 

[TheClappening]

which is something any halfway competent regular attorney should be able to do.

Exhibit A: Sam Johnson.

 

[Urbanmech]

That’s not how being an expert works. An expert should cost more, as you are paying for a specialised service. However, that expert should be able to do things faster and more efficient than someone who is not.

That's not really true. Experts usually cost more to account for the extra training/experience they have, combined with the fact they're generally rarer than the baseline. That being said paying more for a "TCPA expert" is dumb because the entire point of TCPA is getting rid of BS cases with a minimum of cost, which is something any halfway competent regular attorney should be able to do.

But that's the thing the expert wouldn't need to spend hours on research for the TCPA like the non expert. He would need to brush up on it but not spend hours on it. In the end the expert most likely would have higher billable hours ,but the fact they are an expert, should have less hours billed than the non expert.

 

[instythot]

But that's the thing the expert wouldn't need to spend hours on research for the TCPA like the non expert. He would need to brush up on it but not spend hours on it. In the end the expert most likely would have higher billable hours ,but the fact they are an expert, should have less hours billed than the non expert.

There's also the view that you only call in an expert for a problem that a generalist would fail at or consider impossible

Still, the basic order of things is all fucked up. It should flow:

1) play get out of defamation free card
2) if opponent plays an interrupt or counterspell, proceed to deposition to dig up dirt on them

 

[AnOminous]

That’s not how being an expert works. An expert should cost more, as you are paying for a specialised service. However, that expert should be able to do things faster and more efficient than someone who is not.

Right. A legal expert would charge more by the hour, but wouldn't be billing absurdly large blocks of time for research for stuff he presumably would already know as an "expert." Sam Johnson is just a door law generalist who handles whatever cases walk in the door and he didn't need to do that, even though presumably not being an "expert," he would need to spend more time doing research.

Lemoine has been practicing law for almost 20 years according to when he took his bar and still has about a toilet bowl's worth of work to show for it.

Does he count the time he spent in a brain damaged coma?

 

[Markorian]

Does he count the time he spent in a brain damaged coma?

Why are you using past tense? He's still in a brain-damaged coma.

 

[Botchy Galoop]

Ver archivo adjunto 1025805Ver archivo adjunto 1025806Ver archivo adjunto 1025807

http://archive.li/XZBYB

Chupp did no such thing

AKCHUALLY...I kinda saw it the same way, at least I think that Chupp once again gave Vic what he perceived to be an "out" to walk away now and toss the appeal. I also have to agree that Chupp doesn't want to see any of them again and Chupp really really doesn't want this to go to the COA. Sorry Chupp, this clown car has no brakes, ya better just keep those big big shoes on and strap in.

 

[AlexJonesGotMePregnant]

Right. A legal expert would charge more by the hour, but wouldn't be billing absurdly large blocks of time for research for stuff he presumably would already know as an "expert." Sam Johnson is just a door law generalist who handles whatever cases walk in the door and he didn't need to do that, even though presumably not being an "expert," he would need to spend more time doing research.



Does he count the time he spent in a brain damaged coma?

I'm sure there's plenty of it between the block billing and redactions.

 

[DragoonSierra]

Isn't the statute of limitations one year from discovering the action, not suffering the damages? There's nothing more than suspicion yet, is there?

for defamation.

 

[AnOminous]

Isn't the statute of limitations one year from discovering the action, not suffering the damages? There's nothing more than suspicion yet, is there?

The discovery rule generally requires diligence. You can't just remain willfully blind over someone you believe has wronged you and not investigate the matter just to extend the statute of limitations indefinitely. The discovery rule is an equitable tolling principle that generally requires good faith and clean hands in the matter, which is why, for instance, fraud also tolls the statute of limitations, because it is a wrongful act that specifically prevented the plaintiff from discovering the harm.

I don't think the one year statute of limitations applies to anything Sabat could be gone after (even assuming things we don't know for a fact that he did actually happened) other than defamation.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

But Lane, I thought you said "It means that Chupp thought they worked too hard"? Why would it be a bad thing for your lawyer to work hard for your case?

Because then the lawyer couldn't add their expertise to Lawtwitter and get Popehat peepee touches if they're doing unimportant things like working on cases. Besides, billing your clients when posting on Twitter is an important part of any case as Lane probably knows.