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

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

I do have a question that's been bothering me for a while now:
If the CoA does reverse some of Chupp's decisions, what happens to MoRon's cross-appeal?
Maybe @AnOminous or @RodgerDodger could elaborate.

 

[LuNaS]

I do have a question that's been bothering me for a while now:
If the CoA does reverse some of Chupp's decisions, what happens to MoRon's cross-appeal?
Maybe @AnOminous or @RodgerDodger could elaborate.

It was discussed somewhere before, but it would basically make the cross appeal completely useless, because if anything is reversed then the entire fees must be reevaluated which would mean the original fees that MoRon are appealing would retroactively not be a thing and they would probably need to appeal the fees again if they are dissatisfied. I think someone mentioned how TCPA only granted fees if all charges were dismissed by TCPA but that is probably wrong.

So basically Lemon is inflating his bill even more with pleadings that might be worthless in the long run.

 

[Bender]

I think Nick has said, what, it's a 50/50 chance? Betting $250,000 on Red in Vegas has only slightly worse odds.

Everything is a 50/50 chance, either it happens or it doesn't.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Hey I've been away a few months but now that the case is presumably over and Vic got the slam dunk victory everyone was certain he'd get, how did MoRONICA and Funimation and the other SJW rats end up finding the money to pay the millions of dollars that they were no doubt ordered to pay for viciously defaming Vic and ruining anime with cuckoldry and feminism? Did they run a gofundme or something or did Chupp order a nationwide tax on soy?

edit ; Did they make Nick Rekeita a judge yet on the back of how accurately he predicted the outcome of this?

I for one, missed you.

 

[teriyakiburns]

I do have a question that's been bothering me for a while now:
If the CoA does reverse some of Chupp's decisions, what happens to MoRon's cross-appeal?
Maybe @AnOminous or @RodgerDodger could elaborate.

I am neither of those wonderful faggots, but I'm pretty sure that the cross-appeal is mooted in that instance.

 

[TheClappening]

I for one, missed you.

Too many diet and Chinese knockoff Dynastias.

 

[AnOminous]

I do have a question that's been bothering me for a while now:
If the CoA does reverse some of Chupp's decisions, what happens to MoRon's cross-appeal?
Maybe @AnOminous or @RodgerDodger could elaborate.

It would be mooted as to any claims against MoRon that were reinstated. If any claim against either isn't reinstated, their appeal on that goes forward.

 

[774]

(side note, if the ruling had been on Vic's favor we would still be on the appeals phase because of how big were the fuck ups).

No, it would most likely be in appeals even if the judge had proper reasoning. Especially if he'd denied the TCPA motions, because the defendants are automatically allowed an interlocutory appeal. Why not take advantage of that? And of course, a plaintiff who genuinely believes they have a case will want to appeal a loss, too, as is happening now in this case. In short, an appeal is highly likely either way.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

No, it would most likely be in appeals even if the judge had proper reasoning. Especially if he'd denied the TCPA motions, because the defendants are automatically allowed an interlocutory appeal. Why not take advantage of that? And of course, a plaintiff who genuinely believes they have a case will want to appeal a loss, too, as is happening now in this case. In short, an appeal is highly likely either way.

Anyone who knows anything said that this case would enter the appeals process from day 1, the stakes are too high with the TCPA in play not to try an appeal. If you win they have to pay fees, if you lose you've wasted their money and money is a massive weapon when a lawsuit is in play, exhausting one sides funds is like the name of the game.

 

[Spectre_06]

I do have a question that's been bothering me for a while now:
If the CoA does reverse some of Chupp's decisions, what happens to MoRon's cross-appeal?
Maybe @AnOminous or @RodgerDodger could elaborate.

Most likely scenario is they have arguments on the same day for both appeals to save time. If ANYTHING is overturned then the defendants, theoretically lose out on all changes in the amounts they'd be paid for appeals (per the order). Also, anything from the original order will have to be recalculated in order to account for the decisions. However, if the COA overturns everything, , then the order for fees is overturned as well, as there should have been no granting of fees for a case that did not pass TCPA.

 

[Fox Fucker]

Most likely scenario is they have arguments on the same day for both appeals to save time. If ANYTHING is overturned then the defendants, theoretically lose out on all changes in the amounts they'd be paid for appeals (per the order). Also, anything from the original order will have to be recalculated in order to account for the decisions. However, if the COA overturns everything, , then the order for fees is overturned as well, as there should have been no granting of fees for a case that did not pass TCPA.

And this is something the defendants will have to take up with their respective lawyers, because if I remember correctly, Chupp, by not explaining the facts of finding in regards to the fees, didn't specify how each fee related to each charge, correct? He never said anything to the effect of "he owes you X for the thrown out TI, Y for the thrown out defemation, and Z for the thrown out conspiracy".

It makes me wonder if, assuming partial overturning, some of MoRonica's charges will miraculously shift in price to somehow still account for the GFM amount on the parts they can still claim fees for.

 

[LuNaS]

And this is something the defendants will have to take up with their respective lawyers, because if I remember correctly, Chupp, by not explaining the facts of finding in regards to the fees, didn't specify how each fee related to each charge, correct? He never said anything to the effect of "he owes you X for the thrown out TI, Y for the thrown out defemation, and Z for the thrown out conspiracy".

It makes me wonder if, assuming partial overturning, some of MoRonica's charges will miraculously shift in price to somehow still account for the GFM amount on the parts they can still claim fees for.

Chupp actually went a bit farther, Lemon filed a motion for Chupp to explain how he determined the fees and the logic behind them, and Chupp completely ignored it, taking into account that according to some case law he should have had to give an explanation, so him ignoring it is probably another fuck up.

Which again is going to make the appeals process fun, "Yes Judge Chupp made the correct decisions and he didn't commit any mistake during the trial, except for these things that are bad for us." Responses are going to be interesting.

 

[KittyLoaf]

Chupp actually went a bit farther, Lemon filed a motion for Chupp to explain how he determined the fees and the logic behind them, and Chupp completely ignored it, taking into account that according to some case law he should have had to give an explanation, so him ignoring it is probably another fuck up.

Which again is going to make the appeals process fun, "Yes Judge Chupp made the correct decisions and he didn't commit any mistake during the trial, except for these things that are bad for us." Responses are going to be interesting.

Well, what sucks for the defense is that Chupp's order for the dismissal gave them jack shit for a response. Theoretically, shouldn't that make their case to the COA harder than the plaintiff's?

 

[AnOminous]

Well, what sucks for the defense is that Chupp's order for the dismissal gave them jack shit for a response. Theoretically, shouldn't that make their case to the COA harder than the plaintiff's?

If I read the case law about it correctly, it is presumptively abuse of discretion and means Chupp's opinion on fees is entitled to no deference, so in effect, you would be looking at de novo review just like the rest of the case. Chupp, yet again, made the appeals court do his job for him. And he somehow thinks he should be on the appeals court himself, presumably so that he can then dump his job on the Supreme Court of Texas.

 

[Crazedking]

If I read the case law about it correctly, it is presumptively abuse of discretion and means Chupp's opinion on fees is entitled to no deference, so in effect, you would be looking at de novo review just like the rest of the case. Chupp, yet again, made the appeals court do his job for him. And he somehow thinks he should be on the appeals court himself, presumably so that he can then dump his job on the Supreme Court of Texas.

or just agree with the 2 other appelate judges without having to actually do any work. or simply agree with the first judge whose case got kicked to the appeals judges.

ITs a perfect position with him. He can literally do nothing and wash his hands of any works because he can either base his appelate ruling on the other judges, the previous judge or just as you point it out, kick the can to SCT.

 

[WhimsicalTrolli]

Is the date of that thing still on the 10th or got moved ro the 19th like funi's and marchi's extensions.

 

[TheClappening]

Is the date of that thing still on the 10th or got moved ro the 19th like funi's and marchi's extensions.

March 19th.

The question is, is it only the cross-appeal (the appeal regarding the fees) or is their reply to Vic also due on the 19th? And if not, is the appellee brief due the 10th? Find out next time, on Weeb Wars Z.

 

[break these cuffs]

Is the date of that thing still on the 10th or got moved ro the 19th like funi's and marchi's extensions.

March 19th.

The question is, is it only the cross-appeal (the appeal regarding the fees) or is their reply to Vic also due on the 19th? And if not, is the appellee brief due the 10th? Find out next time, on Weeb Wars Z.

Ver archivo adjunto 1170561

Thanks to the judicial system being 100% AIDS, nobody really knows for sure. I'm just hoping for some filing spergery because it will be funny. Also, anything that can continue to highlight how the whole process is arbitrary and stupid; how it's carefully crafted to leech money off of the citizens it's supposed to serve.

 

[AnOminous]

March 19th.

The question is, is it only the cross-appeal (the appeal regarding the fees) or is their reply to Vic also due on the 19th? And if not, is the appellee brief due the 10th? Find out next time, on Weeb Wars Z.

Ver archivo adjunto 1170561

It's somewhat peculiar, as their motion actually specifically mentions their intention to file both briefs, perhaps in the same document, at the same time. So does the appeals court expect a brief, consisting of both their response to Vic's brief and their own opening, on March 19? Or does it still expect the response on March 10?

It could be that "brief for cross-appellants" means their cross-appeal only.

On February 20, the court referred to the response brief, then (and still?) due on March 10, as the "appellee's briefS."

This letter is from Deputy Clerk Rene Wallace for Clerk Debra Spisak.

The other is a per curiam order from the panel and, possibly, just one judge of the panel they chose to handle routine matters like this. I'm not sure how they do that in Texas.

If I had to make a guess, I'd guess they're expecting both on March 19, but in keeping with the trend that nothing in this case, no matter how routine, just goes smoothly, if I were the appellees/cross-appellants I would make sure.

 

[Kendrick]

I'm gonna go on an uneducated limb and say that the wording is that initially, "appellees' briefs" means all the briefs from the appellee's parties, so one brief per defendant.

And that the appellee's court hates having multiple requests bundled together into one point and only gave part of the motion for extended time because the motion was asked incorrectly.

I fully expect them wanting easy to read and digest motions that explains in details with no ambiguity what's requested of them. And having a motion bundling an appeal and a cross appeal together was not clear enough/ those two dossiers have separated file # and they must've granted only an extension to the side it was filed on, and not the other side.

I mean, it makes sense to me that this might have happened this way.