Victor Mignogna v. Funimation Productions, LLC, et al. (2019) - Vic's lawsuit against Funimation, VAs, and others, for over a million dollars.
- Iniciador del tema 5t3n0g0ph3r
- Fecha de inicio
-
🚨 On-and-off DDoS attacks. (July 25th: On-going connection issues.)
🧅 Tor is stable: https://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion/ -
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
N1bbaN3rd
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 16 de Mayo, 2019
Texas has not adopted the Second Restatement of Torts, so in Texas truth is not a defense to TI. Even if everything Soye said to Kamehacon turned out to be absolutely true, he can still be held liable for trying to induce a breach of Vic's contract.
But
it's not like Vic's lawyers have proof that he tried .
- Registrado
- 10 de Jul, 2017
Well it could explain why he was unavailable the middle of may. "I can't your honor. I have all these job interviews scheduled!"
But it does raise some interesting questions come Monday. Especially since that is when all their Discovery documentation is due. I imagine a delay because their lawyer is no longer with them might cause a bit of friction in the Judge's chambers.
Última edición:
Hard Right Cross-Claim
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 2 de Jun, 2019
A single weak filing isn't going to get somebody fired. Biglaw is cutthroat but it's not cutthroat enough to remove a partner over a "weak" answer to a complaint. Answers can be amended and are expected to kinda vomit the whole array of possible defenses. I suspect that his disappearance from their site has nothing or little to do with the current case at all.
Slab Bulkhead
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 20 de Abr, 2019
Here's the thing, This isn't really the first strike against Casey.
Recall he's a relative newcomer to Kessler and Collins (having only joined in 2017). Fast forward to the start of this year, and his previous lawfirm is being sued (whether meritless or not) based on him potentially having lost a case due to incompetent filing. Fast forward again to just a few months ago, and we see yet another dumpsterfire of a filing.
Even his previous experience aside, some of the main listed reasons why someone is usually fired from a lawfirm below:
Now there's no guarantee the marked ones are true, but from what we've seen of Casey I have no issue believing some, if not all of these.
Recall he's a relative newcomer to Kessler and Collins (having only joined in 2017). Fast forward to the start of this year, and his previous lawfirm is being sued (whether meritless or not) based on him potentially having lost a case due to incompetent filing. Fast forward again to just a few months ago, and we see yet another dumpsterfire of a filing.
Even his previous experience aside, some of the main listed reasons why someone is usually fired from a lawfirm below:
Now there's no guarantee the marked ones are true, but from what we've seen of Casey I have no issue believing some, if not all of these.
AnOminous
IS THIS DIVINE INTELLECT? OR IS IT NIGGERLICIOUS?
Retired Staff
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 28 de Dic, 2014
He probably filed a solid answer because it's a nonsensical case and a straightforward approach of pointing that out will work.
Skeptical Idiot
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 5 de Mayo, 2019
I agree. But I also contend the same answer (with affirmative defenses tailored to the facts of Vic's case) would serve 100% as well for Monica and Ron unless the goal was to dirty up Vic in the press. Compare Jamie Marchi's answer.
On another note, I've been following the Twitter war. I'm not willing to engage on a 140-character basis, but a lot of absurd claims are being made. I'll just make my prediction here, Vic's claims will survive an anti-SLAPP motion. Defamation was adequately alleged. Yada, yada, yada.
- Registrado
- 17 de Mayo, 2019
I still wanted Landau II but I guess that kinda madness would be too stupid even for KickVic.
- Registrado
- 31 de Ago, 2017
Donning my tin-foil hat for this one:
1. Judge puts Casey on the spot and gets him to promise not to TCPA before depositions.
2. Casey leaves the case (possibly with permission from MoRon)
3. New attorney TCPA's before depositions.
How possible is this? Would a new attorney necessarilly be bound to the previous attorney's promises to the court?
1. Judge puts Casey on the spot and gets him to promise not to TCPA before depositions.
2. Casey leaves the case (possibly with permission from MoRon)
3. New attorney TCPA's before depositions.
How possible is this? Would a new attorney necessarilly be bound to the previous attorney's promises to the court?
- Registrado
- 23 de Mayo, 2019
No more Landaus please. Landau was funny in a bad way, but he is a menace to society and I don't want any of his slimy business practices to mess with what is a very important case for Vic.
That could work but the time it would take to officially drop Casey and retain a new lawyer would take longer than the amount of time in between the depositions. If that did happen, the new lawyer wouldn't be held to Casey's promises, but the judge would likely grant an emergency order granting confidentiality.
In order to leave you have to give ample time for your clients to find new counsel, you have to give that counsel all of the documents and the client file, you have to file a motion to withdraw counsel, you have to have a hearing on that motion, if your client opposes that motion, you have to prove that you have good cause, it's a lot of time to spend, even if your clients agree to your withdrawal.
Última edición:
beardium
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 21 de Mar, 2019
Since how even nick seems to be having somethings unclear about how tcpa procedure works etc
i googled and came across this doc https://beckredden.com/uploads/1634...Statutory_Requirements_and_Open_Questions.pdf and have to to say it seems pretty well written, maybe nick should give this a look.
https://beckredden.com - Site of the lawfirm.
Edit - Damn this other doc https://beckredden.com/uploads/1634/doc/Anti-SLAPP_From_the_Defense_Perspective.pdf Talks from the defense's perspective on TCPA strategies/issues. @KEK7go mind pinging these two docs to him on discord ?
i googled and came across this doc https://beckredden.com/uploads/1634...Statutory_Requirements_and_Open_Questions.pdf and have to to say it seems pretty well written, maybe nick should give this a look.
https://beckredden.com - Site of the lawfirm.
Edit - Damn this other doc https://beckredden.com/uploads/1634/doc/Anti-SLAPP_From_the_Defense_Perspective.pdf Talks from the defense's perspective on TCPA strategies/issues. @KEK7go mind pinging these two docs to him on discord ?
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 23 de Mayo, 2019
Send it to him on twitter. He checks that more
- Registrado
- 10 de Mar, 2019
It's definitely a head-scratcher, but until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that he's still with the firm but they want to mitigate some of the heat that they're getting from their involvement in this case.
Very interesting that they seem to be embarrassed by being associated with the attorney for MoRon, though. If they thought that MoRon were going to win, you'd think that they'd be wearing the case like a badge of honor. I mean, Ty Beard actually updated his specialities to add T.I. and defamation, when he didn't list those specialities before.
Civil Conspiracy and Vicarious Liability are both dependent on an underlying tort. If Vic doesn't prevail on the claim of Defamation or on either Tortuous Interference claim (business prospects or contract), then conspiracy to commit a tort could not have occurred, and there would be nothing for which Funimation could be vicariously liable.
I don't believe Casey Erick promised not to file a TCPA motion until after depositions... what he said was that he wasn't going to depose Vic and then file it.
The court probably wouldn't be very happy if it happened, but I still think that there's a possibility we could see a TCPA motion filled tomorrow.
- Registrado
- 23 de Mayo, 2019
They'd be unhappy that their time was wasted. I don't think we'll see a tcpa tomorrow because if they had the intention of stopping the initial interrogatories and documents from coming out, they could have filed it long ago and wouldn't have gotten into a dispute with ty over depositions.
AnOminous
IS THIS DIVINE INTELLECT? OR IS IT NIGGERLICIOUS?
Retired Staff
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 28 de Dic, 2014
The burden shifting issue is more of a mess than it looks like. For instance, what happens when the anti-SLAPP provisions apply a burden to one party, but the actual legal test also includes its own burden shifting mechanism?
A huge fucking mess is what happens.
Vic would be completely okay with anything but that, which the KV loonies have made clear they would treat as a license to have a lynch mob for months.
El Goblina
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 14 de Mayo, 2019
All of this smells like nothingburger. From "this other doc": 'the Texas Supreme Court recently provided a sound bite that defendants would be wise to cite: “We must construe the TCPA liberally to effectuate its purpose and intent fully. Construing the TCPA liberally means construing its exemptions narrowly.”'
So what's the point of the TCPA? To minimize the impact that a spurious case can have on public opinion while simultaneously ensuring that it does not interfere with the legal system finding offenders to be offenders. Basically, the point is to give judges more power to do their jobs right (in theory). The evidence that Vic is being wronged here is pretty overwhelming. The fact that Moronica still can't keep their dumb mouths shut is another strike against the defendants, once the courts actually come to an understanding of what's going on.
More about TCPA specifically here: https://www.tortreform.com/for-the-record/analyzing-texas-anti-slapp-law/
In short, by my reading, the point of the TCPA is simply to provide a framework to empower judges. It should ideally not have much of an impact on the case if all parties are accurately representing truth. Moreover, if the court-interpreted scope is about public policy impact, its relevance here is tangential at best.
- Registrado
- 10 de Jul, 2017
Unlikely. Even if Casey is gone, Perez is still part of that team and she was part of that hearing. She would likely be held to Casey’s promises. I more suspect if Casey is gone Perez will file for an extension on the discovery docs, citing Casey’s departure. I remain skeptical as to Casey being gone however. But it does seem weird.
AnOminous
IS THIS DIVINE INTELLECT? OR IS IT NIGGERLICIOUS?
Retired Staff
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 28 de Dic, 2014
It's a general principle, and it was being applied to a defendant who raised the TCPA based on whether the TCPA applied to a statute in that case. The plaintiff (who was on the losing site of the TCPA) was arguing the statute fell under a narrow exception, and lost on that argument.
Nobody is arguing about whether the TCPA applies to a defamation action. It nearly always does. It's fairly obvious this case does, in fact, touch on First Amendment issues. I assume the TI claims also fall under it, as the courts have often applied it to such cases without any discussion as to whether it does. So the exemptions aren't even at issue here.
- Registrado
- 21 de Ene, 2019
That doesn't mean anything: before becoming a media sweetheart Steve Jobs was fired from the company he founded (yes, that one). Having shares means nothing unless Casey is a majority holder and even then he could be convinced to leave.
Also the idea of him "updating his page" is pretty ludicrous. This is a website, not a grooming pet shop, you don't need to take a page away and then come back with a groomed version of it, it's not a physical thing that is there for the logistic to work that way LOL
Not even Casey is bound by the agreement. It wasn't a court order or rule-whatever-number formal agreement - but the new attourney would still start the case by punching himself in the nuts and guaranteeing the judge wouldn't like him moving forward. In that case, either he chose to ignore the judge's guidance or he was too lazy and incompetent and didn't even know it was there to begin with - either way, that's the strategic equivalent of saying "fuck me in the ass please daddy" to the Judge instead of "hi I am the new attourney for Mr./Mrs. Rial".
Here's an interesting idea for the thunkfuls out there: large companies have been known to have taken measures before firing an employee. For example, a fired employee will reach the campus and find out his keycard doesn't work anymore or that he has lost access to his email and company tools before actually being told he was being fired - this obviously mitigates any damage a disgruntled employee might have if you wait a day or two to do those things AFTER telling him he's good to go.
I know it's a long shot but what if we are seeing the signs Casey is about to be fired come Monday before even he knows it? Maybe someone told the IT guy to "get Casey out of the system ASAP" and then (early or not) the page just went out with it.
- Registrado
- 21 de Oct, 2018
Is monday a workday in the us?