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

I invoke the arcane autistic arts of numerology to bring forth a decision on the 8th month in the 4th day of the 22nd year. 8/4/22
8=4+2+2


numerology.jpg
 
Jokes on him. 9-11 = -2
but 9/11 = 0.818181… and that's significant. Somehow. Except it's actuall 11/9, which is 1.22222… and if you sum them, you get 2.0404… which is also significant. Somehow. It probably means Obama did it.
 
but 9/11 = 0.818181… and that's significant. Somehow. Except it's actuall 11/9, which is 1.22222… and if you sum them, you get 2.0404… which is also significant. Somehow. It probably means Obama did it.
If you add up 1 2 2 2 2 2 you get...11

Which means Ron Toye did 9-11 by throwing Remotes at the Towers and the Pentagon.
 
Haha holy shit I thought today was Thursday so I been dipping in here every once in a while, and it turns out it's Wednesday. So that will either bode well for tomorrow, or the lack of decision will be my bad this week.
 
MMMM. Thursday, smells like tardiness and disappointment

1659666673251.png

No TCPA that I can see, but we have a Chupp. Looks like gay insurance stuff, so I won't deep dive it. However, it shows up as reversed and dismissed, so the 2DCOA said lolno to Chupp's ruling. Sudderth and Wallach, two of the justices reviewing Vic's case, are part of this reversal.

Government Personnel Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Lincoln Factoring
 
No TCPA that I can see, but we have a Chupp. Looks like gay insurance stuff, so I won't deep dive it. However, it shows up as reversed and dismissed, so the 2DCOA said lolno to Chupp's ruling.
I wonder if they're tired of constantly sending back this idiot's incessant Chupp-ups.
 
No TCPA that I can see, but we have a Chupp. Looks like gay insurance stuff, so I won't deep dive it. However, it shows up as reversed and dismissed, so the 2DCOA said lolno to Chupp's ruling. Sudderth and Wallach, two of the justices reviewing Vic's case, are part of this reversal.

34. The trial court committed error when it applied Louisiana law and awarded damages and penalties to Lincoln under the Louisiana Insurance Code. However, if Louisiana law applies, Lincoln is still barred from recovery. Jurisprudence in Louisiana is clear that an assignment contract must specifically provide for the assignment of statutory claims, otherwise the remedy for the assignee is based solely on the contract it was assigned. Lincoln does not have standing to assert claims against GPM for statutory violations because the Beneficiaries only assigned to the funeral home the funeral costs up to $11,047.30. Neither the Irrevocable Assignments nor the Irrevocable Reassignments assign statutory claims. Further, Lincoln has no standing to assert statutory violations under Louisiana’s bad faith statutes as an “assignee” and is precluded from recovery because Lincoln is not a “person insured by the contract.”

I'm a bit confused as to how a Texas trial judge can end up trying to apply Louisiana law. Typically, wouldn't that mean that the lawsuit should be filed in Louisiana?
 
I'm a bit confused as to how a Texas trial judge can end up trying to apply Louisiana law. Typically, wouldn't that mean that the lawsuit should be filed in Louisiana?
Generally the applicable law to a contract is either listed in the contract, or where the contract was formed. This is usually the first question the court resolves and in this case he fucked up and held a pointless trial using the wrong law. This can be a lot harder of a question than it looks and I'd usually cut some slack for getting it wrong but not with it being Chupp.

Also there's this pretty typical Chuppery:
The trial court referenced its pretrial ruling on the choice-of-law issue in its subsequent findings of fact and conclusions of law. The findings and conclusions indicate that the pretrial choice-of-law ruling came as part of the trial court’s denial of GPM’s summary judgment and plea in abatement. But the record does not contain an order denying either the summary judgment motion or the plea in abatement.

Oh imagine that, a ruling without any actual order or legal reasoning. Where have we seen that before?
 
Generally the applicable law to a contract is either listed in the contract, or where the contract was formed. This is usually the first question the court resolves and in this case he fucked up and held a pointless trial using the wrong law. This can be a lot harder of a question than it looks and I'd usually cut some slack for getting it wrong but not with it being Chupp.

Also there's this pretty typical Chuppery:


Oh imagine that, a ruling without any actual order or legal reasoning. Where have we seen that before?
Hopefully we see something similar whenever they decide to do Vics case.
 
Oh imagine that, a ruling without any actual order or legal reasoning. Where have we seen that before?
Good lord.

Mignogna v. Funimation et all: One party is a contractor for another, despite there being literally no evidence indicating that, and literally no party ever made that assertion.

Ramsey's Rods v. Maggrets: One party made defamatory statements, despite no evidence existing that said party ever published anything.

:story:

I am amazed that we still get a weekly updated within minutes of the TCA updating their website.

Just a salute to the dedicated people still checking.
Autism
 
I've updated the OP with a summary of the case's current status as well as what has befallen Funimation recently (lol cucked).
 
Hope this doesn't end up like Ya Bio Zack, you know, dropping the suit because they found success and sticking it to the other party wasn't worth it.
He will not drop it before appeals come back in his favor. After that he may settle, but I do not believe he'll be able to settle with all of the parties, because I can't imagine Vic will settle for less than 'an apology' and that is something Monica and Ron are deathly allergic to. Marchi and Funi may be as well.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo