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

NotaLolyer

Surprise Witnesses
kiwifarms.net
I'm perfectly willing to state that I think that TIEC was Vic's single strongest case, that Ty's exceptional boomering completely fucked its chances to get through both the hearing and the TCPA, and that the defamation and conspiracy claims are such sure losers that I am 100% certain Vic will never see a single cent of damages regarding them. Regardless, 12 (dismissed claims) is greater than 5 (which have yet to be ruled on), so yes, I am quite comfortable assuming that.
Then you’re also admitting a court of appeals will not affirm chupps decisions on TI based on the TCPA standard, especially given he didn’t make clear wether the 2aP would be considered and the fact Ty later read straight from it without him batting an eye means it’s most definitely available in COA for Ty and so is Marchis DM and tweet “full context” which Ty presented after the break, even though Chupp had bench ruled, it was on the record.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Zero Day Defense

lawtwitterthrowaway

kiwifarms.net
Then you’re also admitting a court of appeals will not affirm chupps decisions on TI based on the TCPA standard,
I think it's an interesting question for the future, something for the defendants to keep in mind during mediation.
especially given he didn’t make clear wether the 2aP would be considered
He really, really did make clear, several times, that he wasn't considering the 2nd Amended Petition. He provisionally allowed the affidavits in, but considering they were originally attached to the 8/30 filing and certainly weren't the only new things in there, that's not saying much.
 

NotaLolyer

Surprise Witnesses
kiwifarms.net
He really, really did make clear, several times, that he wasn't considering the 2nd Amended Petition. He provisionally allowed the affidavits in, but considering they were originally attached to the 8/30 filing and certainly weren't the only new things in there, that's not saying much.
Where? He kept saying later and maybe and perhaps.
 

lawtwitterthrowaway

kiwifarms.net
MR. BEARD: Are we including the second amended pleadings or not?

THE COURT: I don't think so.
Page 38 of the transcript. And I mean, this comes after Sam Johnson's presentation, which itself was proceeded by Chupp slapping Ty silly in regards to why the 2nd Amended Petition was bad and stupid and an attempted endrun around giving opposing counsel time to argue against his filing (which, let me tell you, courts take very seriously)
 

NotaLolyer

Surprise Witnesses
kiwifarms.net
Considering the rest of the hearing had Ty scrambling for what was in his first pleading, I'm more than confident it's a No. And a fairly definitive one, at that.
You missed the part where Ty blew that off and verbatim started reading from the 2aP unopposed, and no it wasn’t just the affidavits in the 8-30 filing.
 

lawtwitterthrowaway

kiwifarms.net
You missed the part where Ty blew that off and verbatim started reading from the 2aP unopposed, and no it wasn’t just the affidavits in the 8-30 filing.
You clearly missed pages 40-43, where the judge...well, I'll let his words speak for themselves.
THE COURT: And I'll tell you, as far as the second amended petition is, I don't think I can consider it, because we would never have a hearing like this, because you would always file a petition right before -- a new petition right before, and it would void everything that was filed before it.
It's not fair to them to file their motion to dismiss, and you not file a proper response to it, and then you come in and amend your petition, which may nullify what their motion to dismiss is. At some point in time we have to have a motion to dismiss hearing. And you can't just keep repleading to get around it. Because that's what you're doing, is you're repleading bad stuff to get around the motion to dismiss, when your -- when obviously you thought your first amended petition was deficient.

THE COURT: Yeah, I mean, I'll probably consider the affidavits, as far as your response, but not your new pleading, not your second amended petition. That's -- obviously you're trying to get around the rules. I mean, so I have read them, so I mean, I know what they say. It's going to be hard for me to put them out of my mind now that I've read them any way.

MR. BEARD: Yes, Your Honor. You didn't get an accurate copy of the email.

THE COURT: I don't -- I'm not worried about that. I'm worried about the cause of action that you have against Ms. Marchi and the tweets that are in your first amended petition, because that's the petition we're here about, because you didn't file the second amended petition until after you did the affidavits wrong.
The 2aP is dead, dead, dead.
 

Gehenna

With every step, my Autism grows.
kiwifarms.net
You clearly missed pages 40-43, where the judge...well, I'll let his words speak for themselves.
The 2aP is dead, dead, dead.
You are missing the word PROBABLY in there. Again, not definitive. This is one of the specific examples of where if either party had been on the ball, this could have been solved. Either Chupp saying a flat yes or no, or Ty pressing for a flat yes or no.

Edit: The worst part about that bit quoted, I do see Chupp's point. And even agree. But he hems and haws, saying things like "probably" as if he is STILL CONSIDERING it, leaning TOWARDS no, but has not yet decided. That, for being in the middle of the trial, is just awful for the legal process.
 

GRB86

kiwifarms.net
Considering the rest of the hearing had Ty scrambling for what was in his first pleading, I'm more than confident it's a No. And a fairly definitive one, at that.
You are missing the word PROBABLY in there. Again, not definitive. This is one of the specific examples of where if either party had been on the ball, this could have been solved. Either Chupp saying a flat yes or no, or Ty pressing for a flat yes or no.
I was in the court for this hearing, If I am not mistaken, later in the day the Judge affirmed the information, in the gallery alot of us looked at each other because we were confused, he never made it clear. (Chupp)
 

Gehenna

With every step, my Autism grows.
kiwifarms.net
I was in the court for this hearing, If I am not mistaken, later in the day the Judge affirmed the information, in the gallery alot of us looked at each other because we were confused, he never made it clear. (Chupp)
It looks, to me, like he doesn't have a solid legal backing to refuse it, but has a good argument outside of the legal procedure for it, and isn't sure where he should come down on it. Probably especially because there was no ruling on the late supplement filings, and he could see that also being brought up later. I get the quandry he was in, but he should have decided that before the trial and it didn't seem like he fully decided even during.
 

lawtwitterthrowaway

kiwifarms.net
You are missing the word PROBABLY in there.
He's saying he'll "PROBABLY consider the affidavits, as far as your response, but not your new pleading, not your second amended petition". You're clearly grasping at straws here. "I'm worried about the cause of action that you have against Ms. Marchi and the tweets that are in your first amended petition, because that's the petition we're here about, " could not get any more clear. The 2aP was dead in the water from the very first, and Chupp took the time to lecture Ty about why it ended up that way.
 

NotaLolyer

Surprise Witnesses
kiwifarms.net
You clearly missed pages 40-43, where the judge...well, I'll let his words speak for themselves.
The 2aP is dead, dead, dead.
Paragraph one is Chupp literally telling the plaintiff he’s not allowed to do what the rules say he’s allowed to do, the rest is still not a ruling. It was an opinion on Marchis matter.
The ruling on Marchi was dismissed but Ty brought in exactly what Chupp asked for from the first petition after the break.... You missed that part yet again.

I’ll say it again, after Marchi Ty read from the 2aP verbatim despite Chupp having said he read it and it went unopposed.

That looks definitive to you?
 

LuNaS

kiwifarms.net
The more appropriate response to this sped is 'Hoes Mad'
I still think we need a rating for this kind of people, maybe Illiterate would work?

Also at the very least he is trying to defend the Lawtwitter points, he is failing because partially well he is himself, so failure must be is SOP, if following lawtwitter is any indication, and also because trying to defend someone that is wrong tends to result in failure.

He should know that unless you have a solid statement from the judge we can't determine if he made a ruling, hell even with solid rulings there is still the chance of the judge backpedaling.
 

lawtwitterthrowaway

kiwifarms.net
Paragraph one is Chupp literally telling the plaintiff he’s not allowed to do what the rules say he’s allowed to do, the rest is still not a ruling. It was an opinion on Marchis matter.
The ruling on Marchi was dismissed but Ty brought in exactly what Chupp asked for from the first petition after the break.... You missed that part yet again.
Paragraph one is Chupp literally telling the plaintiff he wasn't allowed to do the things he did, and that the rules prohibit doing them. And yes, Ty had to dig through the first petition for his evidence there. Instead of getting that from the 2aP, because that was out.
I’ll say it again, after Marchi Ty read from the 2aP verbatim despite Chupp having said he read it and it went unopposed.
Go ahead, show me the reciepts. I'm a patient person.
 

Sam Losco

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net

NotaLolyer

Surprise Witnesses
kiwifarms.net
Paragraph one is Chupp literally telling the plaintiff he wasn't allowed to do the things he did, and that the rules prohibit doing them. And yes, Ty had to dig through the first petition for his evidence there. Instead of getting that from the 2aP, because that was out.

Go ahead, show me the reciepts. I'm a patient person.
No, paragraph one is Chupp complaining about Ty using the rules to replead which he’s allowed to do but is “unfair” despite the rules allowing him to do so.

Paragraph two is the judge suggesting Ty is TRYING to get around the rules despite being allowed to replead and suggesting that the burden is the rule 11 agreement despite Ty being allowed He’s suggesting the defense is burdened by a legal replead within the rules. It’s up to the defense to show burden and they would definitely fail that at appeals with how much they burdened Ty first.

Paragraph three affirms this is about Marchis matter and despite Ty giving Chupp what he wants Chupp remarked about his bench ruling already being done (appealable and reconsiderable)

You have the receipts, You refuse to read them.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino