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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Nothing, he just the only gay voice actor I know.
Edit: and also the one that's against vic. I think he also called him a homophobe but that I'm not sure on

The dudes married to a woman.

If you want gay VAs, there's J Michael Tatum, Brandon Mcinnis, Greg Ayres, Chris Patton, and David Wald.

If you want a lesbian there's Bryn Aprill.
 
Whoever filed the Plaintiff's response has a real problem with punctuation. And I don't think the legal argument has a good flow within the document.

But they did get Lemoine hoisted upon his own idiotic petard:

Screenshot 2019-11-04 at 9.27.51 PM.png

Screenshot 2019-11-04 at 9.21.43 PM.png

Screenshot 2019-11-04 at 9.22.55 PM.png


There's no way Lemoine can argue against this interpretation of the final ruling, when he just filed an appeal arguing for this interpretation.

(I'm disappointed BHBH didn't cite Lemoine's own motion to dismiss the appeal, but it's probably best to have a clean cite so they can attack that logic separately.)
 
Whoever filed the Plaintiff's response has a real problem with punctuation. And I don't think the legal argument has a good flow within the document.

But they did get Lemoine hoisted upon his own idiotic petard:

View attachment 997612
View attachment 997606
View attachment 997607

There's no way Lemoine can argue against this interpretation of the final ruling, when he just filed an appeal arguing for this interpretation.

(I'm disappointed BHBH didn't cite Lemoine's own motion to dismiss the appeal, but it's probably best to have a clean cite so they can attack that logic separately.)
Yes he can, he can argue in the alternative, its very normal.

He just you know, looks like a hypocrite and might get roasted by a competent judge
 
  • Agree
Reactions: EmuWarsVeteran
So it looks like the angle that BHBH is going for is the "No final ruling has been made yet." That means that they were fully prepared to have the appeals courts tell them to just wait, and that the notice for appeals was to just cover their bases. What does that mean for the Fuhrer though, since that is his big argument to get the appeal dismissed, which I'm not sure Judges have the power to do considering that, you know, Appeal Court Judges will be deciding that, not Trial Judges.
 
So it looks like the angle that BHBH is going for is the "No final ruling has been made yet." That means that they were fully prepared to have the appeals courts tell them to just wait, and that the notice for appeals was to just cover their bases. What does that mean for the Fuhrer though, since that is his big argument to get the appeal dismissed, which I'm not sure Judges have the power to do considering that, you know, Appeal Court Judges will be deciding that, not Trial Judges.
It means the Fuhrer is an idiot. His 'dismissal' request to the appeals was ALWAYS a delaying tactic. I have NO idea what his end goal is beyond that, there is nothing short of getting West Nile myself that will allow me to understand THAT.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: EmuWarsVeteran
......Aren't you doing the exact same thing with Nick Reiketa? Unless you're an actually lawyer who knows about this case law or studied it extensively like anominious has you're really no different.
I mean you can still look and comprehend things from a layman's perspective. It doesn't take a law degree to realize things don't make sense. And I have at least myself learned more about law, cause this case alone has got me interested into reading up on parts. So no, I'm not parroting things. I simply don't do that. I speak only from my perspective and mine alone.
 
Yes he can, he can argue in the alternative, its very normal.

He just you know, looks like a hypocrite and might get roasted by a competent judge

I know he can argue in the alternative. That's what I expect BHBH to be doing in response to the motion to dismiss the appeal.

But Lemoine was exceptional enough to send a letter with this exact argument to the judge who will be hearing this discovery motion first. BHBH has only made 1 argument so far, and they'll be arguing the opposite in a different court (the appeals court).
 
Please explain how there wasn't TI

I can wait.
I would love to have a neutral lawyer explain this with regards to the Kamehacon appearance. I have my theory that the lack of actual damages put into evidence (such as a second contract with numerically different terms) did that away, but literally every lawyer I've seen has just stated that the mere fact that the contract was reinstated, even if the terms were different, negates the damages. Weird pattern that is still unexplained to me, but I've noticed several lawyers who came in neutral say it.

For the other contracts, it's mainly a problem that it wasn't clearly stated which ones were prospective and which ones were existing, and the elements to meet the torts are different, combined with the fact that Ty submitted Vic's whole deposition into evidence where Vic stated he couldn't think of any other cons that had cancelled on him. The ALAB guys actually make a good point that the deposition going poorly might not have entirely been Ty's fault: some types of clients are notoriously hard to control in depositions. Still Ty's fault that he cited the whole thing in his filing though - could have made it to summary judgment and not risked Vic having to pay out fees and sanctions.

There's no way Lemoine can argue against this interpretation of the final ruling, when he just filed an appeal arguing for this interpretation.

(I'm disappointed BHBH didn't cite Lemoine's own motion to dismiss the appeal, but it's probably best to have a clean cite so they can attack that logic separately.)
The argument will be that for a decision to be appealable it has to be the final ruling, whereas the TCPA only states that discovery is stopped until the motion to dismiss is ruled upon. It's not exactly a settled area of law at the appeals court as far as I can tell, so I think it's a toss-up for which way this one goes. From Sean's point of view, it's worth it to take the risk. Best case you might find some evidence that helps you, worst case you just padded those hours.
 
I would love to have a neutral lawyer explain this with regards to the Kamehacon appearance. I have my theory that the lack of actual damages put into evidence (such as a second contract with numerically different terms) did that away, but literally every lawyer I've seen has just stated that the mere fact that the contract was reinstated, even if the terms were different, negates the damages. Weird pattern that is still unexplained to me, but I've noticed several lawyers who came in neutral say it.

For the other contracts, it's mainly a problem that it wasn't clearly stated which ones were prospective and which ones were existing, and the elements to meet the torts are different, combined with the fact that Ty submitted Vic's whole deposition into evidence where Vic stated he couldn't think of any other cons that had cancelled on him. The ALAB guys actually make a good point that the deposition going poorly might not have entirely been Ty's fault: some types of clients are notoriously hard to control in depositions. Still Ty's fault that he cited the whole thing in his filing though - could have made it to summary judgment and not risked Vic having to pay out fees and sanctions.


The argument will be that for a decision to be appealable it has to be the final ruling, whereas the TCPA only states that discovery is stopped until the motion to dismiss is ruled upon. It's not exactly a settled area of law at the appeals court as far as I can tell, so I think it's a toss-up for which way this one goes. From Sean's point of view, it's worth it to take the risk. Best case you might find some evidence that helps you, worst case you just padded those hours.
Yes we know your theory that there is no numbers means its not TI, we have not forgotten that dumb argument that you have repeated, that is a stupid theory because you do not need numbers to prove the concept of 'damage' at a prima facie stage.
 
Yes we know your theory that there is no numbers means its not TI, we have not forgotten that dumb argument that you have repeated, that is a stupid theory because you do not need numbers to prove the concept of 'damage' at a prima facie stage.

You don't need exact numbers, but you do need more than a naked assertion of damages, which Vic provided in that he was forced to incur substantial legal fees in obtaining a new contract after the first was breached, and the new contract had materially different terms, for instance, requiring him to spend thousands on "security" which had not originally been contracted for.

This is according to Vic's testimony.

These clearly meet the requirement.
 
Yes we know your theory that there is no numbers means its not TI, we have not forgotten that dumb argument that you have repeated, that is a stupid theory because you do not need numbers to prove the concept of 'damage' at a prima facie stage.
Yes, I remember how this dance goes.

I assert you need to provide evidence of damages. You assert they did provide evidence of damages. I counter mere assertion of damages is essentially just a repleading of the elements. You retort that they said the source of the damages, hiring a lawyer and paying for security. I come back with they still need to show some monetary value of those things to show actual damages rather than just assert it. The heat death of the universe. The case finally reaches the final appeal.
 
Yes, I remember how this dance goes.

I assert you need to provide evidence of damages. You assert they did provide evidence of damages. I counter mere assertion of damages is essentially just a repleading of the elements. You retort that they said the source of the damages, hiring a lawyer and paying for security. I come back with they still need to show some monetary value of those things to show actual damages rather than just assert it. The heat death of the universe. The case finally reaches the final appeal.
Yes you can hold onto that retarded argument of 'THEY NEED NUMBERS' forever, please do, its fucking dumb.
 
I mean you can still look and comprehend things from a layman's perspective. It doesn't take a law degree to realize things don't make sense. And I have at least myself learned more about law, cause this case alone has got me interested into reading up on parts. So no, I'm not parroting things. I simply don't do that. I speak only from my perspective and mine alone.
I still stand by what I said about TI getting thrown out. It didn't make any sense to me.

However, for months people here have been talking about how monica and co are gonna get destroyed and Chupp is gonna throw the smack down on these thots. Everyone's predictions and shitposting has been tossed on it's head. I will grant you that I myself think Chupp's decision is exceptional questionable. But to genuinely look from an outsider's view it does look exceptional when people rant on and on about how "Vic is gonna completely destroy them" when he hasn't gotten any real legal victories yet and loss a very important one.

I think people should stop paying too much attention to the legalese (or less ranting about how Vic is gonna destroy everyone) and more attention to the funny content of this lawsuit and the exceptional individuals who produce it.
 
He's filing it in the court of appeal, not the trial court. Because the appeal is in the court of appeal. And you can dismiss an appeal, it's just nearly utterly pointless to do. He's just deliberately driving up costs with bullshit with no other purpose than increasing his bill.
Frankly I'm wondering if he's just trying to drag things out in general at his client's behest. It was well known that Vic and Ty intended to sue other people/add them to lawsuit after discovery let them firm up their case against them. Dragging the appeals out long enough to go past a statute of limitations would probably mess with that plan. That won't directly help his clients, but it probably won't hurt them and would help friends of theirs.
 
I still stand by what I said about TI getting thrown out. It didn't make any sense to me.

However, for months people here have been talking about how monica and co are gonna get destroyed and Chupp is gonna throw the smack down on these thots. Everyone's predictions and shitposting has been tossed on it's head. I will grant you that I myself think Chupp's decision is exceptional questionable. But to genuinely look from an outsider's view it does look exceptional when people rant on and on about how "Vic is gonna completely destroy them" when he hasn't gotten any real legal victories yet and loss a very important one.

I think people should stop paying too much attention to the legalese (or less ranting about how Vic is gonna destroy everyone) and more attention to the funny content of this lawsuit and the exceptional individuals who produce it.
Sometimes people's individual wishes do bleed through. Cause whether you agree or disagree, Vic was dealt dirty.
 
Yes you can hold onto that exceptional argument of 'THEY NEED NUMBERS' forever, please do, its fucking dumb.
I'll hold onto it for at least a little while longer. There's a decent chance the appeals court doesn't ever get to it. If the other lawyers are right that mere reinstatement of the contract is enough to ruin the TI claim, then the appeals court will likely stop there and not bother ruling in either direction whether statement of sources of damages are enough to survive TCPA. That's the poor thing about appellate courts: they don't bother going through all the ways they could have made their decision, they generally just go until they make there decision and announce, "We aren't dealing with any other factors now".

If the appeals court does say that TI can survive on Kamehacon, I will admit I was wrong. If they say that TI can't survive on Kamehacon, will you admit you were wrong about the law, or will you insist the appeals court is wrong?
 
Back