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

AnOminous

But I'm not mad at anyone.
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Frankly I like Nick but I still think it's pretty masturbatory. It'd have been way funnier if the plan was not to actually file it, just to make LawTwit go into a tizzy and try to waste MoRon's time and money responding to a non-existent document.

I think a fair amount that's in it will become quite evident almost as soon as they look at the record, if they're at all competent. The very first thing of importance in the procedural history is there's a complaint, a first amended complaint, a second amended complaint, and a dispute over which one is the operative pleading. There is a motion to strike the second amended complaint. What's the ruling on it? Oh, there isn't one. And then there's the blanket denial of every single pending motion at the end of the case.
 

RodgerDodger

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Good. I'm very glad to be wrong. It's a minor thing but good to have done the right thing on.

I can blame the court then. They actually noted Funimation's submissions but not BHBH's. Why? I don't know. Earlier in the year research and the Second District site itself went months between any kind of update then updated them all at once.



Another good reason is that you're an academic or practitioner (or both) with special expertise in the issue the court is addressing. For example, this amicus brief submitted by Eugene Volokh in a case involving Yelp. Generally such a brief describes the interest of the amicus or amici. In this brief, it is:

View attachment 1615077

An amicus brief can support the arguments of one party or the other, or be entirely neutral and support neither party. In general, an amicus is not supposed to be a person with a direct interest in the outcome of the specific case. Nick doesn't have such a direct interest, but he is hardly the sort of disinterested party trying to help the court with a thorny issue of law. He is clearly, for his own reasons, an advocate of one side, and has at least an indirect interest in the outcome of the specific case.

So long as he keeps it to the specific legal issue or issues it's about, I don't see how it can cause much harm. I'm jut not a huge fan of amicus briefs in general and don't think any but the very best of them are actually helpful to the court.

Well trolling and bad behavior on the internet is a central element of this case. And Nick is a recognized expert in those areas.
 

Kendrick

Do not believe anything I say.
kiwifarms.net
Just think, you guys are sperging out over Nick writing a brief...now imagine how much seething KV are doing in their dms to one another.
We're laughing at how much pointless this will be, 99,99% of the time.

They're probably seething at how they didn't think of doing it before, or how it proves Rick is Lasagna's sneaky counsel.
 

AnOminous

But I'm not mad at anyone.
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
But what if…

I were to write an amicus myself, but in the name of someone else from LawTwitter, and have them submit it?

Ho ho ho ho. Delightfully devilish, J. Sean.

This is likely to be how MoRon oppose it if they bother, with a claim that Ty is just trying to exceed page limits by having a proxy submit a purported amicus which is just more briefing on the same stuff, submitted after the deadline to surprise them.
 

Spicybeef

kiwifarms.net
I think a fair amount that's in it will become quite evident almost as soon as they look at the record, if they're at all competent. The very first thing of importance in the procedural history is there's a complaint, a first amended complaint, a second amended complaint, and a dispute over which one is the operative pleading. There is a motion to strike the second amended complaint. What's the ruling on it? Oh, there isn't one. And then there's the blanket denial of every single pending motion at the end of the case.

I am glad that he wrote this brief because it seemed to me (a non-lawyer) that BHBH ended up 'wrestling with pigs', in that they got dragged in to the muddy details deeper than Chupp was willing to wade through. I think because of all of the silliness the defendants introduced, BHBH has to spend too many of their pages and briefings responding to defendants, and not enough time hammering home the basics of the case. I agree that, in theory, the appellate court should be able to see what's going on, but I am glad that there is essentially a TLDR breakdown of the important points. If the appellate court accepts it, I think it will be really useful in helping them see through the smokescreen that Chupp failed to.
 
Tags
None