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

[TheClappening]

In Miller v. Schupp, it looks like the two were a married couple until their divorce. I can only see the appellant/appellee briefs, but the gist of it was the woman accused the man of drug abuse and plain old Toye-style physical abuse.

Miller sued Schupp for defamation. Schupp played her TCPA card. Judge granted it. After an appeal, it looks like the appeals court reversed and remanded.

This should be interesting to read once the actual opinion drops. In Miller v. Watkins, the appeals court affirmed the trial courts defeat of the TCPA. In Ramsey's Rods vs Maggretts, the appeals un-did the Chuppening and overturned Chupp's dismissal of a valid TCPA motion. This case is an initial granting of a TCPA, but then the appeals court overturning it and bringing it back to trial, which is what most of us here following this wants to happen in Vic's case.

Interestingly, no Vic judges on this panel.

 

[Terrifik]

Poke poke.

C'mon, do something.
View attachment 2866547

Who am I kidding. Why should this week be any different from the past 50+ weeks.


Still have another ~20 minutes

EDIT:
Thanks for nothing 2DCOA
View attachment 2866604

Looks like we have a TCPA case though

02-21-00107-CV James Miller v. Heather Schupp

If Heather satisfied that burden, James could avoid dismissal by
presenting clear and specific evidence of a prima facie case for each essential
element of his claim. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 27.005(c) (West
Supp. 2020). If he did so, Heather still could obtain dismissal by establishing
each essential element of a valid defense to James’s claim. Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. Code Ann. § 27.005(d) (West Supp. 2020).
2. James presented clear and specific evidence of his claim.
The requirement to present clear and specific evidence of a prima facie
case means the plaintiff must “provide enough detail to show the factual basis
for its claim.” In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579, 590–91 (Tex. 2015) (orig.
proceeding). Clear and specific evidence “is the minimum quantum of
evidence necessary to support a rational inference that the allegation of fact is
true.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
A defamation plaintiff defending against a TCPA motion can meet the
clear and specific standard in a defamation case by showing “the facts of when,
where, and what was said, the defamatory nature of the statements, and how
they damaged the plaintiff.” Id. at 591. In deciding whether clear and specific
10
evidence exists, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmovant. Robert B. James, DDS, Inc. v. Elkins, 553 S.W.3d
596, 603 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2018, pet. denied).
A. James introduced clear and specific evidence of publication,
falsity, and negligence.
To maintain a defamation claim, the plaintiff must prove that—
• the defendant published a false statement of fact to a third
person;
• the statement defamed the plaintiff;
• the defendant acted with the requisite degree of fault; and
• the statement proximately caused damages, unless the
statement is defamatory per se.
Bedford v. Spassoff, 520 S.W.3d 901, 904 (Tex. 2017); In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d
at 593; Ghrist v. MBH Real Estate LLC, No. 02-17-00411-CV, 2018 WL
3060331, at *4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 21, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.).
For a private individual, the required degree of fault is negligence. In re Lipsky,
460 S.W.3d at 593. James introduced sufficient evidence of each element.
Asher Creppel’s affidavit—authenticating Heather’s Instagram
message accusing James of assault—is evidence that Heather published a
statement defaming James to a third party. Heather accused James of
physically assaulting her, his sisters, and other women. In his affidavit, James
11
testified that he never physically assaulted Heather, his sisters, “or any other
women” and that “any statements to the contrary are false.”16 Thistestimony
is evidence of falsity.
James’s testimony also constitutes evidence of negligence. Heather’s
accusation that James physically assaulted her is binary—that is, it either is
true or it isn’t. And Heather and James each know whether it is true or isn’t.
Heather could not falsely accuse James of assault without either (1) being
negligent, or (2) acting with malice. Either way, the requisite degree of fault
exists. So, James’s testimony of falsity also is circumstantial evidence of fault.
And circumstantial evidence can meet the TCPA’s requirement for clear and
specific evidence. See In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 584, 591.
With clear and specific evidence of the first three required elements,
that leaves only the final element: damages.
B. Because Heather’s statements were defamatory per se,
no evidence of damages was required.
A defeamation plaintiff does not always have to prove proximate cause
of damages. If a statement is defamatory per se, then nominal damages may be
awarded without proof of actual injury because mental anguish and loss of
16 App. 4; C.R. 70–71.
12
reputation are presumed. In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 596. In that situation, the
existence or absence of evidence concerning damages “can have no bearing
on [a] dismissal motion under the TCPA.” See id. (citation omitted).
Heather’s statements accusing James of committing a crime constitute
defamation per se. See Leyenecker & Assoc’s, Inc. v. Wechter, 683 S.W.2d 369,
374 (Tex. 1984); KTRK TV, Inc. v. Robinson, 409 S.W.3d 682, 690 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. denied).
So, James can vindicate his name and obtain nominal damages without
evidence of actual injury. See In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 596; Kadow v.
Grauerholz, No. 02-20-00044-CV, 2021 WL 733302, at *4 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citation omitted). (citation omitted) (“The
defendant must also prove damages unless the statement constitutes
defamation per se.”).
C. James produced clear and specific evidence of damages.
To support an award of mental anguish damages,17 James had to present
either direct evidence of the nature, duration, and severity of his mental
anguish, thus establishing a substantial disruption in his daily routine, or
17 In a suit for defamation, a plaintiff can recover mental-anguish damages without showing
physical injury. See Anderson v. Durant, 550 S.W.3d 605, 619 (Tex. 201; Bentley v. Bunton,
94 S.W.3d 561, 604 (Tex. 2002).
13
evidence of a high degree of mental pain and distress that was more than mere
worry, anxiety, vexation, embarrassment, or anger. Anderson v. Durant, 550
S.W.3d 605, 618–19 (Tex. 201 (citations omitted).
Compensable mental anguish includes a mental sensation of pain
resulting from emotions such as grief, severe disappointment, indignation,
wounded pride, shame, despair, or public humiliation, or a combination of any
of these. Wyler Indus. Works, Inc. v. Garcia, 999 S.W.2d 494, 506 (Tex. App.—
El Paso 1999, no pet.) (citation omitted).
After the trial court’s ruling excluding portions of his testimony, the
following testimony remained to prove James’s claim of mental anguish:
Starting in September 2020, I have been prescribed and
began having to take anti-depression medication,
medication to help with sleep, medication to help
concentrate, and medication to treat my cramps and other
stomach-related issues. Prior to my learning of Defendant
Schupp’s false statements, I had never experienced any of
these issues or have had to take any of the medications I
must now take . . . .18
This testimony established that James suffered depression severe
enough to require prescription mediation. He also suffered from stomach
cramps and an inability to sleep or concentrate. Again, each of these three
18 App 4; C.R. 70–71.
14
condition was severe enough to require prescription medication. At the time
of James’s testimony, he had been taking these mediations for six months.
Viewed in the light most favorable to James, this evidence established a
high degree of mental pain and distress that was more than mere worry,
anxiety, vexation, embarrassment, or anger.
The Texas Supreme Court recently upheld an award of damages for
mental anguish based on evidence similar to that introduced by James. In that
case, the plaintiff testified that he sought medical care and was prescribed antianxiety medication. He also provided the following testimony concerning
depression, difficulty sleeping and concentrating, and loss of appetite:
The accusations that were made have affected me. They
basically destroyed me. You get up every morning—I’ve
never understood depression. My wife and daughter always
called me Mr. Happy, Mr. Sunshine, and I was—they
wouldn’t berate me. They all thought that it was a joke. But
since these accusations have come about, I’m paranoid
about going outside. Have trouble focusing. Anxiety,
anxious. It’s been a two-year nightmare trying to get my life
back and my reputation back and it's—it’s been a two-year
nightmare, like I say.
....
I had trouble sleeping. I had trouble eating. I had trouble
focusing on things. I worried about my family’s future.
Worried about my 30–year career that had been slandered
all over town.
15
Anderson, 550 S.W.3d at 620. The Court deemed this testimony sufficient to
support an award of damages for mental anguish. Id.
The Supreme Court relied on similar evidence—difficulty sleeping,
stomach problems, headaches, and depression requiring medication—to
affirm an award of mental-anguish damages in Serv. Corp. Int’l v. Guerra, 348
S.W.3d 221, 233 (Tex. 2011).
This Court affirmed an award of mental-anguish damages based on
similar testimony in Goodman v. Page, 984 S.W.2d 299, 306 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth 1998, pet. denied). The plaintiff there testified that:
I had lots of problems, stomach problems. I did have to go
to the doctor and I was under the care of the doctor for
several months. I had to take medication, and I felt very
humiliated and I was hurt. I was very hurt.
Id. at 306. Concluding that this testimony established the plaintiff’s “stomach
problems” were caused by the defendant, this Court affirmed an award of
mental-anguish damages. Id. at 307. This Court also affirmed an award of
mental-anguish damages based on testimony of trouble sleeping, fear, and
stress in Norris v. Jackson, No. 2-09-265-CV, 2010 WL 4261541, at *8 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth Oct. 28, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Other courts have relied on similar evidence to affirm entitlement to
mental-anguish damages. See, e.g., C & D Robotics, Inc. v. Mann, 47 S.W.3d
16
194, 200–01 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, no pet.); Metal Indus., Inc. of
California v. Farley, 33 S.W.3d 83, 89–90 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, no
pet.); Wyler Indus. Works, 999 S.W.2d at 509.
A jury will decide James’s credibility. But at this stage, the testimony
constitutes clear and specific evidence of damages.
D. The trial court abused its discretion in excluding James’s
other testimony about damages.
An appellate court reviews the trial court’s evidentiary rulings for an
abuse of discretion. See in re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570, 575 (Tex. 2005). A trial
court abuses its discretion by applying the law improperly. See Cayton v.
Moore, 224 S.W.3d 440, 445 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.).
The trial court sustained Heather’s objections to portions of James’s
testimony concerning damages on the basis that it was not “clear, positive,
and direct” and was “conclusory and incontrovertible.” James concedes the
propriety of this ruling as to his testimony concerning lost sales, commissions,
and promotions at work. But the trial court abused its discretion by excluding
James’s testimony concerning his emotional and physical ailments.
James testified that after learning of Heather’s defamatory statements,
he had difficulty sleeping, was unable to concentrate, suffered significant
weight gain, experienced severe anxiety and accompanying stomach cramps,
17
and felt despondent and depressed. He testified that these issues forced him
to see both a psychiatrist and a medical doctor for treatment.19 All of this
testimony is clear, positive, and direct. Nothing about it is unclear or indirect,
and it evidences no doubt or lack of positivity.
Similarly, the testimony is not conclusory. “A conclusory statement is
one that does not provide the underlying facts to support the conclusion.”
Eberstein v. Hunter, 260 S.W.3d 626, 630 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.)
(citation omitted). James did not simply say that he suffered mental anguish—
he described the specific effects of Heather’s statements and confirmed they
required medical treatment and prescription medication.
Finally, the testimony was readily controvertible (assuming, of course,
it was false). Heather could have deposed James or his medical providers. Sshe
could have obtained his medical records. Heather had the means to probe the
veracity of James’s testimony.
James’s testimony about his emotional and physical ailments was clear,
positive, and direct. It certainly was not conclusory. Indeed, it mirrors the
testimony relied on by the Texas Supreme Court in Anderson and Guerra, and
19 App. 4; C.R. 70-71.
18
this Court in Goodman and Norris. The trial court abused its discretion in
excluding the testimony.
If this Court concludes that James failed to tender clear and specific
evidence of damages, then the trial court’s ruling constituted harmful error by
subjecting James to dismissal of his claims.
E. If this Court reverses the dismissal order, it must
reverse the award of attorney’s fees too.
If this Court reverses the dismissal, it must reverse the award of
attorney’s fees as well. The TCPA authorizes an award of attorney’s fees only
upon dismissal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.009(a)(1) (West 2020).
3. The trial court abused its discretion by assessing sanctions in the
absence of any supporting evidence.
If this Court reverses the dismissal order, then the sanctions must be
reversed as well; sanctions are permissible only upon a dismissal See Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 27.009(a)(2) (West 2020).
But even if this Court affirms the dismissal, it should reverse the
sanction for lack of supporting evidence. An appellate court reviews an award
of sanctions under the TCPA for an abuse of discretion. See Am. Flood
Research, Inc. v. Jones, 192 S.W.3d 581, 583 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam). A trial
court does not abuse its discretion where its sanctions award is supported by
19
substantive and probative evidence. See Rich v. Range Res. Corp., 535 S.W.3d
610, 613 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, pet. denied).
As a result of 2019 amendments, the version of the TCPA governing
this lawsuit permitted—but did not require—the trial court to assess
sanctions against James in an amount “sufficient to deter [him] from bringing
similar actions described in this chapter.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.
27.009(a)(2) (West 2020). The trial court chose to assess sanctions based on
its finding that James brought the lawsuit to deter Heather from exercising her
constitutional rights, and for an improper purpose.
20
Texas courts interpret “improper purpose” in the sanctions context as
the equivalent of bad faith under rule 13. Dike v. Peltier Chevrolet, Inc., 343
S.W.3d 179, 183–84 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, no pet.) (citation omitted).
Bad faith means “the conscious doing of a wrong for dishonest,
discriminatory, or malicious purposes.” Id. at 191 (citation omitted).
In deciding whether a pleading was filed for the purpose of harassment,
the trial court must measure a litigant’s conduct at the time the relevant
pleading was signed. Texas-Ohio Gas, Inc. v. Mecom, 28 S.W.3d 129, 139 (Tex.
App.—Texarkana 2000, no pet.). Generally, the trial court must conduct an
20 App. 2; C.R. 119–20.
20
evidentiary hearing to make a determination about the motives and credibility
of the filer. Dike, 343 S.W.3d at 191.
Because Heather had the burden of proving improper purpose, it was
incumbent that she provide some evidence of improper motive at the
sanctions hearing. Id. at 194.
The problem is that the trial court received no evidence—literally
none—of James’s purpose or motive in filing the lawsuit. During the hearing,
Heather chose not to call James as a witness. Indeed, she did not introduce
any evidence at all other than her lawyer’s testimony concerning her
attorney’s fees.
Of course, circumstantial evidence will suffice to allow a trial court to
infer improper motive. But no such circumstantial evidence is present in this
case. And no inference concerning James’s state of mind or purpose can be
drawn “from a silent record.”
Because the sanctions award turns on evidence of James’s motive and
purpose for filing the lawsuit—and his intent to file similar claims in the
future—the trial court needed evidence concerning his state of mind. And
Heather failed to introduce it. The sanctions should be reversed.
21
4. Heather’s statements did not involve any matter of public concern
(an issue raised solely to preserve it for review by the Supreme
Court of Texas).
Heather made the statements at issue solely for personal reasons—not
as a matter of public concern. She was not warning the public—or even
another woman involved with James—of danger. She was attacking James by
savaging his reputation to his friend. Nothing about this involved any public
concern; it was a private matter.
But James acknowledges this Court’s decision earlier this year holding
that “the commission of a crime is a matter of public concern.” Kadow, 2021
WL 733302, at *3 (citation omitted). As a result, James asserts this issue solely
to preserve it for review by the Texas Supreme Court

.............
no dock on reason just

...
Nice try Kiwi farms nice try

 

[TheClappening]

Opinion dropped. Time to look at it.

As mentioned, Schupp accused Miller of drug abuse, domestic violence, and claiming that Miller admitted that he got touched as a child. Schupp apparently told her sister and one of her friends.

Chupp's chuppening makes an appearance

There's a section about per-se damages. Miller says he's on medication. Like Vic.

This part should be very familiar in regards to Jamie's and Monica's claim. They claimed Vic attacked them, and since there were no other witnesses, the only contrary evidence Vic could offer was his denial. Here, Miller denied Schupp's claim that he beat her.

This one is particularly interesting. It's similar to Ron claiming Vic assaults women. Previously I would have thought this would be hard for Vic to prove falsity because it concerns third parties. Apparently, since Vic would know that he doesn't abuse people, him denying claims that he abuses people would be enough evidence.

"According to Monica/Jamie, Vic attacked them in a hotel room/the Funimation lobby. But either Vic abused Monica/Jamie, or he did not. Only Vic and Monica/Jamie know the truth. Because Monica/Jamie knew the truth, if Vic did not physically abuse them, their assertion to the contrary was not only false but made with knowledge of falsity."

I'm slightly more whitepilled in regards to Vic with this opinion.

 

[Mothra1988]

Here's an appropriate thread theme for the case that will never end. Listen to it until you slip into madness.

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

Opinion dropped. Time to look at it.

As mentioned, Schupp accused Miller of drug abuse, domestic violence, and claiming that Miller admitted that he got touched as a child. Schupp apparently told her sister and one of her friends.
View attachment 2866745


Chupp's chuppening makes an appearance
View attachment 2866746

There's a section about per-se damages. Miller says he's on medication. Like Vic.
View attachment 2866757

This part should be very familiar in regards to Jamie's and Monica's claim. They claimed Vic attacked them, and since there were no other witnesses, the only contrary evidence Vic could offer was his denial. Here, Miller denied Schupp's claim that he beat her.
View attachment 2866759
View attachment 2866762

This one is particularly interesting. It's similar to Ron claiming Vic assaults women. Previously I would have thought this would be hard for Vic prove actual malice because it concerns third parties. Apparently, since Vic would know that he doesn't abuse people, him denying claims that he abuses people would be enough evidence.
View attachment 2866769

"According to Monica/Jamie, Vic attacked them in a hotel room/the Funimation lobby. Only Vic and Monica/Jamie know the truth. Because Monica/Jamie knew the truth, if Vic did not physically abuse them, their assertion to the contrary was not only false but made with knowledge of falsity."
View attachment 2866785


I'm slightly more whitepilled in regards to Vic with this opinion.

Someone should slap this in front of Chupp.
This is what the proper procedure of deciding whether or not a motion to dismiss under the TCPA is appropriate looks like!
And its understandable even for his boomer ass!

 

[TheClappening]

It's also good to note that for a thoroughly examined opinion of one claim of defamation against one defendant, it took 13 pages (not counting the first page, which was a cover page).

Imagine 17 causes of action divided across four defendants. Holy shit.

 

[AnOminous]

It's also good to note that for a thoroughly examined opinion of one claim of defamation against one defendant, it took 13 pages (not counting the first page, which was a cover page).

Imagine 17 causes of action divided across four defendants. Holy shit.

And then imagine those causes of action buried under thousands of pages of angry gibberish from everyone involved.

 

[LawTwitter is Dumb]

Opinion dropped. Time to look at it.

As mentioned, Schupp accused Miller of drug abuse, domestic violence, and claiming that Miller admitted that he got touched as a child. Schupp apparently told her sister and one of her friends.
View attachment 2866745


Chupp's chuppening makes an appearance
View attachment 2866746

There's a section about per-se damages. Miller says he's on medication. Like Vic.
View attachment 2866757

This part should be very familiar in regards to Jamie's and Monica's claim. They claimed Vic attacked them, and since there were no other witnesses, the only contrary evidence Vic could offer was his denial. Here, Miller denied Schupp's claim that he beat her.
View attachment 2866759
View attachment 2866762

This one is particularly interesting. It's similar to Ron claiming Vic assaults women. Previously I would have thought this would be hard for Vic to prove falsity because it concerns third parties. Apparently, since Vic would know that he doesn't abuse people, him denying claims that he abuses people would be enough evidence.
View attachment 2866769

"According to Monica/Jamie, Vic attacked them in a hotel room/the Funimation lobby. Only Vic and Monica/Jamie know the truth. Because Monica/Jamie knew the truth, if Vic did not physically abuse them, their assertion to the contrary was not only false but made with knowledge of falsity."
View attachment 2866785


I'm slightly more whitepilled in regards to Vic with this opinion.

But, but TCPA has to prove ACTHUAL MALICE and the burden is so much higher then what the law actually says.

Wonder how lawltwatters gonna try to spin this case, cause lots of it seems very similar to Vic.

 

[East_Clintwood]

Wonder how lawltwatters gonna try to spin this case

Step 1: yell loudly that Vic totally admitted to doing everything so this case is irrelevant
Step 2: stick fingers in ears and yelll "la la la I can't hear you"
Step 3: call anyone who tries to disagree with you even slightly an alt-right naziboo vicstan and then immediately block them

 

[AnOminous]

Step 1: yell loudly that Vic totally admitted to doing everything so this case is irrelevant
Step 2: stick fingers in ears and yelll "la la la I can't hear you"
Step 3: call anyone who tries to disagree with you even slightly an alt-right naziboo vicstan and then immediately block them

You forgot the part where they stalk whoever they blocked until they see something on their alt account, then they unblock them long enough to make a retarded response, then block them again before they can reply.

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

Wonder how lawltwatters gonna try to spin this case, cause lots of it seems very similar to Vic.

They'll ignore it because it isn't Vic's case.

 

[TheClappening]

They'll ignore it because it isn't Vic's case.

They should. The court is consistently referencing previous rulings.

The first (since the submission on September 2020) we saw was Watkins v. Miller. It referenced the usual suspects like Khan v Van Der Linden.

Then there was the chuppening with Ramsey's Rods v. Maggrets. That one referenced Watkins v. Miller.

And now we have this most recent TCPA, Miller v. Schupp. This references Ramsey's Rods v. Maggrets.

 

[kcbbq]

This is the Court of Chancery; which has its decaying houses and its blighted lands in every shire; which has its worn-out lunatic in every madhouse, and its dead in every churchyard; which has its ruined suitor, with his slipshod heels and threadbare dress, borrowing and begging through the round of every man's acquaintance; which gives to monied might the means abundantly of wearying out the right; which so exhausts finances, patience, courage, hope; so overthrows the brain and breaks the heart; that there is not an honorable man among its practitioners who would not give-who does not often give-the warning, "Suffer any wrong that can be done you, rather than come here!"

We have a long way to go to get to Jennens v. Jennens, that case went on for 60 more years after Bleak House was published. 115 years in the courts and all it did was fizzle out because the gofundme money ran out.

 

[AnOminous]

We have a long way to go to get to Jennens v. Jennens, that case went on for 60 more years after Bleak House was published. 115 years in the courts and all it did was fizzle out because the gofundme money ran out.

Which is exactly what happened in Bleak House.

The first (since the submission on September 2020) we saw was Watkins v. Miller. It referenced the usual suspects like Khan v Van Der Linden.

Then there was the chuppening with Ramsey's Rods v. Maggrets. That one referenced Watkins v. Miller.

And now we have this most recent TCPA, Miller v. Schupp. This references Ramsey's Rods v. Maggrets.

This almost has the look of a layup to me. The fact they're citing a case where they overruled Chupp in a current case is intriguing. I'd love it if they overrule Mignogna and cite Miller v. Schupp. The symmetry would be very pretty.

 

[TheClappening]

This almost has the look of a layup to me. The fact they're citing a case where they overruled Chupp in a current case is intriguing. I'd love it if they overrule Mignogna and cite Miller v. Schupp. The symmetry would be very pretty.

If that happens, it would start with Miller (Watkins v. Miller) and end with Miller (Miller v. Schupp)

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, the proper nomenclature would be Miller v. Watkins, since Miller was the defendant, had her TCPA defeated at the trial court, and was thus the appellant. It would also be an example of two Millers being fucked by the trial court (the first Miller because her TCPA was correctly defeated, and the second Miller because it was incorrectly allowed.)

 

[AnOminous]

If that happens, it would start with Miller (Watkins v. Miller) and end with Miller (Miller v. Schupp)

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, the proper nomenclature would be Miller v. Watkins, since Miller was the defendant, had her TCPA defeated at the trial court, and was thus the appellant. It would also be an example of two Millers being fucked by the trial court (the first Miller because her TCPA was correctly defeated, and the second Miller because it was incorrectly allowed.)

Texas, like most states, has abandoned the archaic practice of reversing the names of the parties on appeal in favor of the less confusing method of keeping the same name at all levels of civil proceedings.

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

If that happens, it would start with Miller (Watkins v. Miller) and end with Miller (Miller v. Schupp)

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, the proper nomenclature would be Miller v. Watkins, since Miller was the defendant, had her TCPA defeated at the trial court, and was thus the appellant. It would also be an example of two Millers being fucked by the trial court (the first Miller because her TCPA was correctly defeated, and the second Miller because it was incorrectly allowed.)

If the court uses either Miller cases in their decision, would "Miller Time" be an actual thing for TCPA cases?

 

[TheClappening]

Texas, like most states, has abandoned the archaic practice of reversing the names of the parties on appeal in favor of the less confusing method of keeping the same name at all levels of civil proceedings.

Eh.

In Watkins and Miller, Watkins was the plaintiff and Miller was the defendant. It would be stylized as Watkins v. Miller. If you remember, Miller filed a TCPA and had it denied by the trial court. She appealed it, making Miller the appellant and Watkins the appellee.

The appeal court references the appellate case as Carlye Miller v. Michelle Watkins, reversing the name order of the trial court.

Same thing happened in the chuppening case with Ramsey's Rods and the Maggrets.

Ramsey's Rod was the plaintiff, the Maggrets were the defendants. So it would be Ramsey's Rods v. Maggrets. The Maggrets filed TCPA and had it denied. They appealed, making the Maggrets the appellants and Ramsey's Rod's the appellees.

Like with Watkins V. Miller, Maggrets v. Ramsey's Rods had the names reversed reflecting appellant v. appellee, not plaintiff v. defendant.

 

[AnOminous]

Like with Watkins V. Miller, Maggrets v. Ramsey's Rods had the names reversed reflecting appellant v. appellee, not plaintiff v. defendant.
View attachment 2867890

Herp derp, you're right. And looking back at the textbook which actually taught me the real rule, I got the general rule completely ass-backwards somehow. Sorry.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

They should. The court is consistently referencing previous rulings.

The first (since the submission on September 2020) we saw was Watkins v. Miller. It referenced the usual suspects like Khan v Van Der Linden.

Then there was the chuppening with Ramsey's Rods v. Maggrets. That one referenced Watkins v. Miller.

And now we have this most recent TCPA, Miller v. Schupp. This references Ramsey's Rods v. Maggrets.

The tard in me wants to make a pattern and think that they are trying to lay foundation to untangle all the fuckery that was the Mignogna case, and they need more time to noodle out and explain just how arse backwards it all went at the trial court level.