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

[Red Wizard]

It wasn't a mistake to extend the TCPA filing deadline. Who benefited the most from the case continuing long after it could have ended? Vic. Think about how different this case would have looked like if the TCPA was filed on Day 1 and the hearing was scheduled 3 days later.

Except I believe that the TCPA extension was given to them after the original deadline had passed. If Ty hadn't agreed to the extension, they would not have been able to file the TCPA and we'd be past all this nonsense.

 

[AnOminous]

And, I am shocked, SHOCKED, to see that the Texas Supreme Court has already ruled that you must do more than just assert that damages exist to satisfy the clear and specific prima facie case for damages (source):

"Lipsky also argues that the trial court should have dismissed Range's defamation claim because no evidence established that his remarks caused the company specific damages. The court of appeals again disagreed. It concluded that the affidavit from Range's senior vice president, which discussed Range's losses in very general terms, was sufficient to defeat Lipsky's TCPA motion to dismiss. See 411 S.W.3d at 547. As we have already determined, the vice president's affidavit was insufficient proof of Range's special damages for purposes of the TCPA."

Nice. You can cut and paste. Can you read?

"It concluded that the affidavit from Range's senior vice president, which discussed Range's losses in very general terms, was sufficient to defeat Lipsky's TCPA motion to dismiss."

That's what Law Twitter says should have happened, but it didn't because the defendants really wanted to depose Vic.

Law Twitter is right. That's what should have happened. That's what any reasonable defendant in the same situation would have done. That's what Nick and Ty were saying should have happened before the case was even filed. Law Twitter is almost good at making predictions and recommendations about things that already happened, and that is about all they're even almost good at.

Except I believe that the TCPA extension was given to them after the original deadline had passed. If Ty hadn't agreed to the extension, they would not have been able to file the TCPA and we'd be past all this nonsense.

It was filed before. If the extension hadn't been granted, they'd have just been forced to file earlier, which while it looks in retrospect would have been the better option, that wasn't necessarily evident at the time. Apparently, Chupp rewards bad faith litigation without even looking at what's actually going on, so it was a waste to bother with good faith behavior.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

Being paid more could in fact nullify the damages.

Imagine a situation where you and a friend have a contract for something. Some third party tries to get that contract cancelled.

You and your friend agree to cancel the contract and blame it on the third party, and reinstate the contract later with exactly the same terms. You get to claim you were damaged by the loss of whatever the first contract was worth, but in actuality your total losses are zero.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Being paid more could in fact nullify the damages.

Imagine a situation where you and a friend have a contract for something. Some third party tries to get that contract cancelled.

You and your friend agree to cancel the contract and blame it on the third party, and reinstate the contract later with exactly the same terms. You get to claim you were damaged by the loss of whatever the first contract was worth, but in actuality your total losses are zero.

You're actually describing fraud you fucking moron.

 

[Red Wizard]

Being paid more could in fact nullify the damages.

Imagine a situation where you and a friend have a contract for something. Some third party tries to get that contract cancelled.

You and your friend agree to cancel the contract and blame it on the third party, and reinstate the contract later with exactly the same terms. You get to claim you were damaged by the loss of whatever the first contract was worth, but in actuality your total losses are zero.

Yeah that's fraud. But I get what you're saying. If Vic and Kamehacon had reinstated the original contract, Vic's losses still wouldn't have been zero, because there was time, effort and money put into getting the contract reinstated.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Yeah that's fraud. But I get what you're saying. If Vic and Kamehacon had reinstated the original contract, Vic's losses still wouldn't have been zero, because there was time, effort and money put into getting the contract reinstated.

Yes, even if the original contract was reinstated, there would still be damage and there would still be TI.

But even worse for ron is that the contract was materially changed, and that's obviously damage that should be more than enough to pass the TCPA

 

[DinkyCowSow]

Nice. You can cut and paste. Can you read?

"It concluded that the affidavit from Range's senior vice president, which discussed Range's losses in very general terms, was sufficient to defeat Lipsky's TCPA motion to dismiss."

You... you do realize this is part of the opinion that the court of appeals was overturned on, right?

Red: the overturned court of appeals
Green: the literal next line overturning the thing you just asserted
"The court of appeals again disagreed. It concluded that the affidavit from Range's senior vice president, which discussed Range's losses in very general terms. See 411 S.W.3d at 547. As we have already determined, the vice president's affidavit was insufficient proof of Range's special damages for purposes of the TCPA. "

 

[AnOminous]

Being paid more could in fact nullify the damages.

No it doesn't, that's called mitigating damages. It might reduce damages, and you're generally obligated to do so, but it was no way enough to completely offset the costs of hiring a legal team, extra security, and losing permanent prospects of employment in the future.

Obviously you can't collect damages you didn't suffer, any more than you could collect damages that you would have suffered from an automobile accident you avoided by swerving, even if it would have been the other guy's fault had it happened.

You... you do realize this is part of the opinion that the court of appeals was overturned on, right?

Red: the overturned court of appeals
Green: the literal next line overturning the thing you just asserted
"The court of appeals again disagreed. It concluded that the affidavit from Range's senior vice president, which discussed Range's losses in very general terms. See 411 S.W.3d at 547. As we have already determined, the vice president's affidavit was insufficient proof of Range's special damages for purposes of the TCPA. "

Well, you got me on that. I thought this was a different case with similar language. However, let's compare the language in the Range affidavit:

"Range has suffered direct pecuniary and economic losses and costs, lost profits, loss of its reputation, and loss of goodwill in the communities in which it operates."

That's literally just tracking the language of the statute. It doesn't say how they suffered any of this.

Slatosch's affidavit explains exactly how Vic incurred at least some identifiable, specific expenses:

This is not just a general claim that the plaintiff was somehow damaged, but a specific allegation as to how, and that it was Vic who paid for the additional security and suffered material changes to what he'd contracted for without any additional compensation.

This wasn't just sitting out there in space, either, without any reference in the pleadings, which explicitly cited it:

"Due to Ronald’s disclosure of Sony’s investigation and his and Monica’s pressure, Slatosch cancelled Vic’s appearance at Kameha Con in breach of his written agreement.17 Slatosch eventually reinvited Vic to attend Kameha Con, but only after considerable expense by both sides and requiring Vic to pay for additional security (something not required of other guests).18"

 

[Sheryl Nome]

holy shit are you actually fucking retarded Dinky.

Thats SPECIAL DAMAGES, I'm going to puke. Read the actual fucking decision. Oh my god.

"Pleading and proof of particular damage is not required to prevail on a claim of defamation per se, and thus actual damage is not an essential element of the claim to which the TCPA's burden of clear and specific evidence might apply. Although Range's affidavit on damages may have been insufficient to substantiate its claim to special damages, it was not needed to defeat Lipsky's dismissal motion because Range's defamation claim was actionable per se. The trial court accordingly did not abuse its discretion in denying Lipsky's motion to dismiss. "

THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE MOTION TO DISMISS

IE, proof of special damages is NOT necessary to beat the TCPA where defamation is PER SE

 

[DinkyCowSow]

holy shit are you actually fucking exceptional.

Thats SPECIAL DAMAGES, I'm going to puke. Read the actual fucking decision. Oh my god.

"Pleading and proof of particular damage is not required to prevail on a claim of defamation per se, and thus actual damage is not an essential element of the claim to which the TCPA's burden of clear and specific evidence might apply. Although Range's affidavit on damages may have been insufficient to substantiate its claim to special damages, it was not needed to defeat Lipsky's dismissal motion because Range's defamation claim was actionable per se. The trial court accordingly did not abuse its discretion in denying Lipsky's motion to dismiss. "

THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE MOTION TO DISMISS

I already stated several times that I am aware that defamation per se does not require proving of special damages. However, regular defamation does require a proving of damages.

I am drawing something called an "analogy", that if an element of regular defamation requires you to prove damages requires more than an affidavit "which discussed [plaintiff's] losses in very general terms", then if an element of TIEC requires you to prove damages, it also requires more than an affidavit "which discussed [plaintiff's] losses in very general terms".

 

[Sheryl Nome]

I already stated several times that I am aware that defamation per se does not require proving of special damages. However, regular defamation does require a proving of damages.

I am drawing something called an "analogy", that if an element of regular defamation requires you to prove damages requires more than an affidavit "which discussed [plaintiff's] losses in very general terms", then if an element of TIEC requires you to prove damages, it also requires more than an affidavit "which discussed [plaintiff's] losses in very general terms".

The defamation is per se you stupid bitch, damages are presumed. Of course you have to provide proof of damages when the defamation isn't per se. But the defamation is per se.

So shut the fuck up and take the L already

TI doesn't require proof of special damages, just actual damages, so shut the fuck up and take the L already

 

[DinkyCowSow]

The defamation is per se you stupid bitch, damages are presumed. Of course you have to provide proof of damages when the defamation isn't per se. But the defamation is per se.

So shut the fuck up and take the L already

Let me see one more time if I can walk you through it.

The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the tort of defamation, an element of which involves proving damage, requires that you support your damages with more than an affidavit claiming them in general terms.

Vic is suing for several torts, including both defamation per se and tortious interference. Tortious Interference, like the tort of defamation above, but unlike the tort of defamation per se, does require you to prove damages. I am suggesting that proving damages would, like in the case of regular defamation, require. more than an affidavit claiming them in general terms.

At no point anywhere am I claiming that Vic must prove damages for his defamation per se tort accusation. I'm really trying to be kind with this, and I hope this has helped you understand somewhat.

 

[AnOminous]

Let me see one more time if I can walk you through it.

The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the tort of defamation, an element of which involves proving damage, requires that you support your damages with more than an affidavit claiming them in general terms.

Vic is suing for several torts, including both defamation per se and tortious interference. Tortious Interference, like the tort of defamation above, but unlike the tort of defamation per se, does require you to prove damages. I am suggesting that proving damages would, like in the case of regular defamation, require. more than an affidavit claiming them in general terms.

At no point anywhere am I claiming that Vic must prove damages for his defamation per se tort accusation. I'm really trying to be kind with this, and I hope this has helped you understand somewhat.

I edited my response into the earlier post.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

You are utterly misunderstanding the court if you think that it is saying that alleging damage resulting from Ron specifically isn't enough to constitute TI

Like you cannot be this stupid without trying to intentionally misunderstand the court

 

[2lolis1cup]

You can explain this to that moron until you're blue in the face, he seems to think that clear and specific means that Vic must have a specific number in damages and the evidence to back that number specifically up.

Because he is a mental midget

I have an accurate depiction of the re.tarded bird in real life. I can not tell you my sources, but they are as strong as the 100's of women Vic raped and molested.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

You are utterly misunderstanding the court if you think that it is saying that alleging damage resulting from Ron specifically isn't enough to constitute TI

Like you cannot be this stupid without trying to intentionally misunderstand the court

You have, one several occasions now, responded to the claim that Vic must prove damages for Tortious Interference with "Actually defamation per se doesn't require you to prove damages." There are some people in here who are doing a pretty good job of making the case that an affidavit from the other contracting party that there were damages is enough, though I remain unconvinced. You are doing a good job of making it look like people here have no idea about what the law is.

I have an accurate depiction of the re.tarded bird in real life. I can not tell you my sources, but they are as strong as the 100's of women Vic raped and molested.

Ver archivo adjunto 934840

Got me.

 

[Gehenna]

You have, one several occasions now, responded to the claim that Vic must prove damages for Tortious Interference with "Actually defamation per se doesn't require you to prove damages." There are some people in here who are doing a pretty good job of making the case that an affidavit from the other contracting party that there were damages is enough, though I remain unconvinced. You are doing a good job of making it look like people here have no idea about what the law is.

To be fair, so far your unconvinced status is... well, a bit strange. You have had multiple people point out the statutes, explain the requirements, and mention precedent. Your only evidence for it has been pointed out to be materially different in several ways, and your own stated requirements have been met. At this point, unless you present a new and novel arguement, then there stands no reason to continue as you seem set to continue being unconvinced against the best argumentation that can possibly be provided, short of changing the facts of the case itself.

 

[DinkyCowSow]

I would be perfectly willing to accept a citation of a court case where the plaintiffs listed only sources of damages but none of the damages themselves that survived a TCPA motion.

I just have yet to see anyone cite a case where someone won a TCPA motion that required them to provide a prima facie case for damages, but they did not do anything other than list the sources of damage in an affidavit.

This is why lawyers and judges exist. Because there are sometimes unanswered areas of law where there is a disagreement.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

You have, one several occasions now, responded to the claim that Vic must prove damages for Tortious Interference with "Actually defamation per se doesn't require you to prove damages." There are some people in here who are doing a pretty good job of making the case that an affidavit from the other contracting party that there were damages is enough, though I remain unconvinced. You are doing a good job of making it look like people here have no idea about what the law is.

ONLY BECAUSE YOU CAN'T FUCKING READ

I have repeatedly said the damages are clearly and specifically pled, thus they're not a general pleading, thus we can throw Lipskey out, its not relevant. Its only statement is that just saying 'we suffered damage' is not good enough to pass the TCPA, you have to provide SOME evidence of that damage.

I have no fucking clue why you think that proof of a broken contract is not proof of damages for TI in texas. It is beyond human comprehension why you think an affadavit stating that 'Vic got a new contract and had to pay for security' is not damage. I cannot fucking fathom it. You insist on reading my statements as if i'm still talking about Defamation when i'm talking about TI.

Neck yourself, do the human race a favor.

I would be perfectly willing to accept a citation of a court case where the plaintiffs listed only sources of damages but none of the damages themselves that survived a TCPA motion.

I just have yet to see anyone cite a case where someone won a TCPA motion that required them to provide a prima facie case for damages, but they did not do anything other than list the sources of damage in an affidavit.

This is why lawyers and judges exist. Because there are sometimes unanswered areas of law where there is a disagreement.

How fucking stupid are you. Nobody is listing just sources of damages. They're saying 'Here's the damage we suffered, here's why Ron was the source'

That is enough to satisfy both the clear and specific clauses of the TCPA. Your demands for specific cases to disprove your dumb assertions are fucking dumb and irrelevant. They're not relevant to what Chupp said didn't pass the TCPA.

 

[2lolis1cup]

@emspex when somebody is clearly trolling how much do we tolerate them spamming the same question over and over and over? Is it around the 20th mark the re.tard is thread banned?

Also @DinkyCowSow you have been told the answer to your single question multiple times and have been given multiple sources and reasons why. You have no excuse other than, "I was only pretending to be re.tarded!"