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

[DragoonSierra]

As everyone has, I've been pondering what Lemon is up to...

Given the targets of his recent activity and considering what I've been reading, I see only two possibilities relevant to the current case:

1. Drive up costs for personal gain
2. Find information beneficial to increasing sanctions.

As others have pointed out, analysis of costs, risks, and benefits, don't seem to justify these. (unless dealing with insanity, which unfortunately can't be ruled out.) So I'm left to ponder the other possibility, which I haven't seen discussed much. Perhaps his actions do not pertain to this case? Might there even be other parties interested enough to fund it? (Conspiracy theory engaged...)

I can think of one party in particular who probably wants to know very badly what information has been obtained by BHBH from the exact same people Lemon has recently gone after. Might he or any others be, if not directly behind it, at least contributing? It doesn't seem like much of a reach to me.

Hes trying to cut off the appeal at the legs before it even gets filed.

"Chupp levels of exceptional" means acting like your run of the mill judge, so that's exactly what you should expect.

Answering your question (and extending beyond a month b/c appeals takes time), you can reliably expect the following:

1. Texas Second District Court of Appeals will reject the current appeal as premature.
2. Slatosch deposition likely is granted. I don't know what Lemoine is after here, but he clearly thinks something is worth the effort.
   1. No, there's no attorney client privilege here at all. Slatosch isn't Vic's client, he's not Ty's employee.
   2. It's very unlikely that there's any work product exceptions either.
3. Chupp may rule on the requests for clarification that Lemoine requested.
4. Additional Lemoine requests to Ty personally and BHBH for communications between them and Dahlin/Huber/Slatosch/Rekieta are wrangled over.
   1. I believe most of them will succeed because the attorney-client privilege does not apply to communications between the client's attorney and non-clients (unless they worked for Ty), and documents shared with them.
5. Sanctions hearing is held. Chupp sanctions Vic.
6. Vic appeals the final order, filings made by both parties.
7. Second District reviews the filings, and affirms the ruling. I don't think there'll even be a hearing because the ruling was correctly decided (you may disagree but that's my guess).
8. Vic maybe petitions for en banc review. Denied.
9. Vic maybe appeals to SCOTX. No cert granted.
10. Vic maybe appeals to SCOTUS. No cert granted.

Oh hi Mike.

 

[AnOminous]

Therefore, since the two things are tied together, they also automatically is a part of, or is appealed when they decide to do so.

That's actually an argument they're part of the same final ruling, and that since that part hasn't been issued, there isn't a final ruling yet.

 

[Much Ado About Nothing]

That's actually an argument they're part of the same final ruling, and that since that part hasn't been issued, there isn't a final ruling yet.

That is a curious arguement to make. I suppose the TCPA is kinda....well I find it all rather confusing. Most sources I found when talking about granting a motion in full, such as Chupp did, it is thought of as a final judgement.

Motion Granted: If a TCPA motion is aimed at the entirety of claims in the suit and is granted in full, thereby disposing of all claims and parties, then it results in a final judgment from which a regular appeal may be pursued. If the motion is granted in a manner that dismisses only some of the pending claims, then it is interlocutory, and there is no express right to pursue an interlocutory appeal of the partial grant. See, e.g., Pulliam v. City of Austin, No. 03-17-00131-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 3325, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 14, 2017, no pet.

Seems there are a few open questions in regards to additional findings which is what Lemwah is doing.

Spoiler: Law stuff

V. Findings of FactThe TCPA provides that, on a request by the movant, the court “shall issue findings regarding whether the legal action was brought to deter or prevent the moving party from exercising constitutional rights and is brought for an improper purpose, including to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or to increase the cost of litigation.”

CPRC §27.007(a). Presumably a successful movant would request these findings to support an award of sanctions against the nonmovant under section 27.009. There is no deadline specified to make the request but, if it is made, then the findings “must” be issued within 30 days of the request. Id. §27. 0 07( b).Section 27.007 is titled, “Additional Findings.” However, there is not a single other reference to “findings” within the TCPA, so what are these findings “additional” to? The Texas Supreme Court held that the TCPA does not “forbid” other findings. Greer v. Abraham, 489 S.W.3d 440, 443 n.3 (Tex. 2016).

Still, the Second Court of Appeals recently held that the trial court was “without authority” to find that the nonmovant’s petition was “willful” or “malicious” because these characterizations are not the type of “improper purpose” contemplated by sec-t i o n 27. 0 07(a). McGibney v. Rauhauser, No. 02-16-00244-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 2797, at *36–42 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 19, 2018, pet. filed, No. 18-0495). Remember that an interlocutory appeal by an unsuccessful movant from the denial of its TCPA motion will automatically stay all trial proceedings. CPRC §51.014(b)-(c).

Thus, if a party intends to seek any findings, the request should be made sufficiently in advance of any appeal/stay.Several open questions remain about this procedure, including:
• What is the deadline to request findings under section 27. 0 07(a)?
• Does the court have authority to issue other/addi-tional findings?
• If so, what is the deadline to request any other find-ings?• Do the general deadlines and procedures for findings/conclusions under Rules 296-299 apply in a TCPA context

 

[AnOminous]

That is a curious arguement to make. I suppose the TCPA is kinda....well I find it all rather confusing. Most sources I found when talking about granting a motion in full, such as Chupp did, it is thought of as a final judgement.

This was part of that motion.

Ver archivo adjunto 993272
Seems there are a few open questions in regards to additional findings which is what Lemwah is doing.

Maybe Chupp got bored and didn't read the motions to the end. It wouldn't surprise me.

It seems dumb to force the trial court judge to make fact findings and decisions on fees and sanctions that may just be promptly overruled, wasting everyone's time, but that may be what the rules require. I think judicial economy would dictate otherwise, but here we are again watching the TCPA swiftly dispose of cases.

 

[Much Ado About Nothing]

This was part of that motion.

Ver archivo adjunto 993289



Maybe Chupp got bored and didn't read the motions to the end. It wouldn't surprise me.

It seems dumb to force the trial court judge to make fact findings and decisions on fees and sanctions that may just be promptly overruled, wasting everyone's time, but that may be what the rules require. I think judicial economy would dictate otherwise, but here we are again watching the TCPA swiftly dispose of cases.

I genuinely have the feeling that he doesn't read. If he first does, he selectively does so, which excludes important information from his decision-making. I do think that is why Lemwah asked for an written submission of the hearing he wanted done. To argue for his right to depose slatosch. Any news on that today? seeing he really wanted 1st of November to be a thing?

 

[secondclass]

That is a curious arguement to make. I suppose the TCPA is kinda....well I find it all rather confusing. Most sources I found when talking about granting a motion in full, such as Chupp did, it is thought of as a final judgement.

That can happen, but usually not. In Texas, cases typically end with a document that says "Final Judgment," and that document disposes of all parties and claims at issue in the lawsuit. This document is usually very clear that it's a final judgment. It will say something like "this is a final, appealable judgment that disposes of all parties and claims at issue." An example is here: https://www.tml.org/DocumentCenter/View/750/CUSTER-Final-Judgement-PDF

In Vic's case, the TCPA Order just dismissed all of Vic's claims. There is still a remaining claim for attorney's fees and sanctions by the Defendants against Vic. Since there is still an unresolved claim, "all" of the claims are not yet disposed, and there is no final, appealable judgment.

This is mostly just inconsequential procedural scuffling. Whether the Court of Appeals can review the case now (probably not), or in a few weeks (probably), has zero effect on the outcome of the case.

 

[Kosher Salt]

That can happen, but usually not. In Texas, cases typically end with a document that says "Final Judgment," and that document disposes of all parties and claims at issue in the lawsuit. This document is usually very clear that it's a final judgment. It will say something like "this is a final, appealable judgment that disposes of all parties and claims at issue." An example is here: https://www.tml.org/DocumentCenter/View/750/CUSTER-Final-Judgement-PDF

In Vic's case, the TCPA Order just dismissed all of Vic's claims. There is still a remaining claim for attorney's fees and sanctions by the Defendants against Vic. Since there is still an unresolved claim, "all" of the claims are not yet disposed, and there is no final, appealable judgment.

This is mostly just inconsequential procedural scuffling. Whether the Court of Appeals can review the case now (probably not), or in a few weeks (probably), has zero effect on the outcome of the case.

Regardless of whether the judgement is final or not, the whole question is moot. There's precedent that an early-filed appeal automatically becomes timely immediately following the moment it could be timely filed. If the appellate court doesn't have jurisdiction until after Chupp's final ruling, the appeal doesn't get dismissed, it just gets put on ice until then, at which point it's supposed to be automatically taken back up at the appellate level.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

This is mostly just inconsequential procedural scuffling. Whether the Court of Appeals can review the case now (probably not), or in a few weeks (probably), has zero effect on the outcome of the case.

Absolutely. The idea that he'll be able to successfully stop the appeal outright would only work if his game is like... "They have to wait until sanctions are awarded so this must be dismissed... Ok sanctions are awarded but they are now too late to appeal due to it being 30 days past the final judgement so this must be dismissed..." A catch 22. I could see Chupp buying into that, but I don't think Chupp can say jack shit about what cases the CoA sees.

It's entirely possible that brain damaged fuckwit is trying that, but, the easier and at least somewhat sane answer is he's trying to:

• Run up the bill
• Fish for evidence of round 2
• Find some way to claim the GFM money (all of it)
• Intimidate Slatosch into silence
• Get that second amended complaint and Slatosch's statment out of the record before the appeals court can look at it.
• Find a way to punish Vic / BHBH for daring to fight back against his Woke betters in MeToo

However all this stupid shit he's been doing as of late isn't covered under the TCPA's legal fees thing, although I fully expect him to ask for it anyway, and I fully expect Chupp to just rubber stamp it.

 

[Gehenna]

Absolutely. The idea that he'll be able to successfully stop the appeal outright would only work if his game is like... "They have to wait until sanctions are awarded so this must be dismissed... Ok sanctions are awarded but they are now too late to appeal due to it being 30 days past the final judgement so this must be dismissed..." A catch 22. I could see Chupp buying into that, but I don't think Chupp can say jack shit about what cases the CoA sees.

It's entirely possible that brain damaged fuckwit is trying that, but, the easier and at least somewhat sane answer is he's trying to:

• Run up the bill
• Fish for evidence of round 2
• Find some way to claim the GFM money (all of it)
• Intimidate Slatosch into silence
• Get that second amended complaint and Slatosch's statment out of the record before the appeals court can look at it.
• Find a way to punish Vic / BHBH for daring to fight back against his Woke betters in MeToo

However all this stupid shit he's been doing as of late isn't covered under the TCPA's legal fees thing, although I fully expect him to ask for it anyway, and I fully expect Chupp to just rubber stamp it.

1. Run Up the Bill: Doing so completely unprovoked and without reason, like here, would run up against he plain language of the law. If you think Lemoine is not stupid enough to do the appeal bullshit, he ain't stupid enough for this.
2. Fish for Evidence of Round 2: A round 2 has already been plainly stated as wanted by every single party on the plaintiffs side. The GoFundMe outlines it. Ditto for stupidity.
3. Find Some Way to Claim the GFM Money: Ditto, we'd need to assume he is stupid enough to actually believe he could get money raised by a third party.
   Intimidate Slatosch into Silence: We have the affidavit, it is part of the record on multiple points, intimidating Slatosch does nothing. Ditto for stupidity.
4. Get the Second Amended Complaint...: Literally impossible, and so Ditto for stupidity on his part.
5. Find a way for Vic / BHBH...: Isn't that... the purpose of sanctions? Seems a bit of a non sequitor as a driving force for this particular set of actions.

To summarize, unless you assume he is an idiot neither the thing you responded to nor any of your points make sense. The problem is if you do assume he is an idiot... anything goes. I think trying to guess his motives is a bit of a dead end since in order to understand them one must assume stupidity which means anything goes.

 

[Spectre_06]

That's actually an argument they're part of the same final ruling, and that since that part hasn't been issued, there isn't a final ruling yet.

You know, I'm kind of wondering if Chupp was expecting a motion to reconsider, and he ruled like this in order to give him an out if Ty had filed it. I don't think he wants it to go to appeal, because it's another black eye if it's overturned. That being said, if this isn't the final judgment as Lemoine claims, then he can't file the motion to reconsider until after the sanctions hearing, either. If Lemoine claims it's too late, then there's your proof he was going to play both sides of the street, and get hit by a speeding 'squito either way.

 

[secondclass]

You know, I'm kind of wondering if Chupp was expecting a motion to reconsider, and he ruled like this in order to give him an out if Ty had filed it. I don't think he wants it to go to appeal, because it's another black eye if it's overturned. That being said, if this isn't the final judgment as Lemoine claims, then he can't file the motion to reconsider until after the sanctions hearing, either. If Lemoine claims it's too late, then there's your proof he was going to play both sides of the street, and get hit by a speeding 'squito either way.

As a practical matter, a TCPA ruling isn't usually subject to a motion to reconsider. A TCPA motion has to be ruled on within 30 days of the hearing. The Court can't reconsider once the 30 day period expires.

Since the Court ruled on day 29ish, there wasn't any real possibility to file a motion to reconsider and have the court hear it.

 

[2lolis1cup]

1. Run Up the Bill: Doing so completely unprovoked and without reason, like here, would run up against he plain language of the law. If you think Lemoine is not stupid enough to do the appeal bullshit, he ain't stupid enough for this.
2. Fish for Evidence of Round 2: A round 2 has already been plainly stated as wanted by every single party on the plaintiffs side. The GoFundMe outlines it. Ditto for stupidity.
3. Find Some Way to Claim the GFM Money: Ditto, we'd need to assume he is stupid enough to actually believe he could get money raised by a third party.
   Intimidate Slatosch into Silence: We have the affidavit, it is part of the record on multiple points, intimidating Slatosch does nothing. Ditto for stupidity.
4. Get the Second Amended Complaint...: Literally impossible, and so Ditto for stupidity on his part.
5. Find a way for Vic / BHBH...: Isn't that... the purpose of sanctions? Seems a bit of a non sequitor as a driving force for this particular set of actions.

To summarize, unless you assume he is an idiot neither the thing you responded to nor any of your points make sense. The problem is if you do assume he is an idiot... anything goes. I think trying to guess his motives is a bit of a dead end since in order to understand them one must assume stupidity which means anything goes.

Before the trial I assumed Chupp was a competent judge. Before the trial I assumed Lemoine was a sleazy, but competent lawyer.

I now only assume the most absurd possibilities.

Pic related is how I feel about this trial.

 

[Adach_Ame]

Hey I just got forwarded this term and question by someone, but wouldn't Chris Slatosch being the affiant of opposing party. possibly fall under "Attorney Work Product Protection of Witness Statements" Seemed like an interesting thing I was forwarded.

 

[Dr. Geronimo]

Hey I just got forwarded this term and question by someone, but wouldn't Chris Slatosch being the affiant of opposing party. possibly fall under "Attorney Work Product Protection of Witness Statements" Seemed like an interesting thing I was forwarded.

Nick already covered that on his livestream. I've personally entertained the thought of Chris just declaring the 5th since Lemoine accused him of perjury.

 

[AnOminous]

Nick already covered that on his livestream. I've personally entertained the thought of Chris just declaring the 5th since Lemoine accused him of perjury.

The question is whether he could do that and still testify at trial credibly.

 

[Stoneheart]

1. Texas Second District Court of Appeals will reject the current appeal as premature.

Yeah but filling it early isnt a problem, its a good move since the Rules arent so clear and you dont lose anything by filling early.

Slatosch deposition likely is granted. I don't know what Lemoine is after here, but he clearly thinks something is worth the effort.

1. No, there's no attorney client privilege here at all. Slatosch isn't Vic's client, he's not Ty's employee.
2. It's very unlikely that there's any work product exceptions either.

Why should Chupp grant that if he didnt cared about what Slatosch said?
maybe Ty should get some more witnesses on the stand too. ohh right, thats stuff that normaly happens in trial, and not between a TCPA and an appeal...

1. Chupp may rule on the requests for clarification that Lemoine requested.
2. Additional Lemoine requests to Ty personally and BHBH for communications between them and Dahlin/Huber/Slatosch/Rekieta are wrangled over.
   1. I believe most of them will succeed because the attorney-client privilege does not apply to communications between the client's attorney and non-clients (unless they worked for Ty), and documents shared with them.

Why should Chupp do that? how are those communications important for the case at this stage?
that would open up the case for the same requests from Ty, and Chupp was pretty clear that he doesnt want to hear anything about all of this.

1. Sanctions hearing is held. Chupp sanctions Vic.
2. Vic appeals the final order, filings made by both parties.

yes that will happen in every case...

1. Second District reviews the filings, and affirms the ruling. I don't think there'll even be a hearing because the ruling was correctly decided (you may disagree but that's my guess).

they have to overturn him, he made to many errors to let it stand, even if they think he was right.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Nick already covered that on his livestream. I've personally entertained the thought of Chris just declaring the 5th since Lemoine accused him of perjury.

A negative inference can be drawn if you plead the 5th in civil court, though.

 

[Garm]

1. Run Up the Bill: Doing so completely unprovoked and without reason, like here, would run up against he plain language of the law. If you think Lemoine is not stupid enough to do the appeal bullshit, he ain't stupid enough for this.
2. Fish for Evidence of Round 2: A round 2 has already been plainly stated as wanted by every single party on the plaintiffs side. The GoFundMe outlines it. Ditto for stupidity.
3. Find Some Way to Claim the GFM Money: Ditto, we'd need to assume he is stupid enough to actually believe he could get money raised by a third party.
   Intimidate Slatosch into Silence: We have the affidavit, it is part of the record on multiple points, intimidating Slatosch does nothing. Ditto for stupidity.
4. Get the Second Amended Complaint...: Literally impossible, and so Ditto for stupidity on his part.
5. Find a way for Vic / BHBH...: Isn't that... the purpose of sanctions? Seems a bit of a non sequitor as a driving force for this particular set of actions.

To summarize, unless you assume he is an idiot neither the thing you responded to nor any of your points make sense. The problem is if you do assume he is an idiot... anything goes. I think trying to guess his motives is a bit of a dead end since in order to understand them one must assume stupidity which means anything goes.

I floated the idea that this is a PR move for Lemoine to pass the blame if the TCPA fails or sanctions come up short of paying the bill. Make the appearance that he tried "everything" to protect his clients from the bad man Vic and his conspirators but the judges wouldn't listen.

 

[Gehenna]

I floated the idea that this is a PR move for Lemoine to pass the blame if the TCPA fails or sanctions come up short of paying the bill. Make the appearance that he tried "everything" to protect his clients from the bad man Vic and his conspirators but the judges wouldn't listen.

Could work... would still be stupid, since this shit is sanctionable, but he could be relying on Chupp being Chupp.

 

[Garm]

Could work... would still be stupid, since this shit is sanctionable, but he could be relying on Chupp being Chupp.

It doesn't make a lot of sense from a legal or ethical stand point. Damage control is the only thing I can think of.