Forum - View topicNEWS: Funimation Files Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss Vic Mignogna's Lawsuit
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ChestPains
Posts: 101 |
|
|||
I was thinking the same. It's such a funny choice. |
||||
|
||||
Sethimothy
 Posts: 121 |
|
|||
|
Pour one out for the poor mods as another thread about this exceptional fight between an cult of personality, his incompetent lawyer, and his victims that defend themselves even as their attackers claim that it is the plaintiff forced on trial. I'm probably going to subscribe to this forum today even as I really have no reason to use it, just so that the moderation staff can afford some vodka spiked tea or something.
Oh and
I mean people have been trying to get home held responsible for his behavior for literally over a decade, without much real success. But sure, let's blame the whistle blowers and not the guy with the history of treating event staff like garbage and preteen fans like hands-on displays. Edited to remove full names from post. ~ANN Managing Editor~ |
||||
|
||||
|
xBTAx
Posts: 189 |
|
|||
|
Yeah, to my understanding all defendants’ lawyers are probably in discussion. Funimation isn’t suddenly throwing them under the bus here or anything; Vic’s claiming they acted for Funimation when that’s just not true. The contract claims are also nonsense to begin with - IIRC Vic’s lawyers haven’t even produced the contract in question still - so it’s not like there’s really anything serious for the others to deal with on that front anyway.
That’s the thing, though. It doesn’t even matter if Funimation/Sony can afford them or not. Cause when Vic loses, he’s paying, right? Why not go for the best when you know you’ll definitely win? |
||||
|
||||
|
Aresef
Posts: 914 Location: MD |
|
|||
No, this actually started in 1989, when, after they worked together on a high school play, a 26-year-old Vic Mignogna invited a 16-year-old girl to his home, where he allegedly sexually assaulted her. Edited to remove full names from post. ~ANN Managing Editor~ |
||||
|
||||
Top Gun
 Posts: 4612 |
|
|||
|
The fact that this type of motion is called "anti-SLAPP" seems incredibly fitting when deployed against this scumbag.
|
||||
|
||||
|
ranran-001
Posts: 537 |
|
|||
|
Vic's a public figure, lawyer isn't trying to downgrade it either.
That basically puts the burden of proof on him to show that Monica, Ron and Jamie all engaged in actual malice. There really hasn't been any thing provided by Vic's lawyer that could demonstrate this, if anything this is going to get worse for Vic as the defense submits affidavits after affidavits of people who have all accused Vic in one way or another of wrongdoing. This is what Vic didn't understand when he got into this lawsuit. He's not likely to win against the remaining defendants, and if their lawyers provide a sufficient TCPA then its over for Vic, he will have to pay attorney fees for all defendants. |
||||
|
||||
MarzGurl
 Posts: 142 Location: San Antonio, Texas |
|
|||
LOL, making a suggestion is attacking now, okay. Edited to remove full names from post. ~ANN Managing Editor~ |
||||
|
||||
|
Sethimothy
Posts: 121 |
|
|||
|
Wait until you see the motion to dismiss which has a court date of August 8th. Plantiff's friends are going to have to do a lot of livestreaming and Fireball slamming to replenish their war chest after that one.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Redbeard 101
Oscar the Grouch
Forums Superstar  Posts: 16941 |
|
|||
|
Forgot what side you're on for a second. Here's a funny and very karma centered possibility.
Let's just say this goes through. Let's just say that things are thrown out, he's up a creek, and in the end Vic is paying them at Funi to some degree for legal fees etc due to this suit. Let's just assume that for a second. Who's paying his fees? In part, fans who refuse to see the trees from the forest and donated to that gofundme for his legal fees. So in essence those same fans could in the end be paying, via their donations for his legal fees, the great evil funimation who cut ties with Vic. Ain't life grand? |
||||
|
||||
|
Sethimothy
Posts: 121 |
|
|||
But he can't lose. Justice will prevail in this tournament arc of the YouTube Heroes vs. the evil people who care about social justice and the women who don't know their place. A drunk lawyer with no actual litigation experience said so, and I know he'd never lie to me. Now since you are on the wrong side, prepare to be doxxed. |
||||
|
||||
Olliff
 Posts: 550 |
|
|||
|
From a purely legal perspective, I don't think Vic is going to in defamation against Funimation, especially since libel and defamation are total defenses. At the very least what Funimation, stated itself was true. Claiming the others are agents of the company when they are contractor is tenuous, which is good for Funimation.
I do think Vic has a better chance against some of the other defendants, but even then they have to prove actual malice, which is hard. However,with the tortuous inference with a contract part of the lawsuit, there is a better chance. Some of the earlier articles made it very clear that other defendants persuaded others to break their contract with Vic when they called conventions, and this has come out in court. This came out with revealed phone records and some of the reasons stated were at least partially untrue, such as pending criminal charges and imprisonment for Vic for the reason to cancel, which to this day hasn't materialized. https://boundingintocomics.com/2019/05/22/ron-toyes-involvement-in-kamehacons-initial-removal-of-vic-mignogna-detailed-in-recently-revealed-text-messages/ It is a messy situation overall, and at least against Funimation, this won't end well for Vic. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. |
||||
|
||||
|
Remington Steele
Posts: 63 |
|
|||
|
Ohh this is good.
Must mean all is going well for Mignogna's lawsuit and must be extremely well in his favor for Funimation to try this now lol. Funimation going to go bankrupt at this rate lol. |
||||
|
||||
|
ranran-001
Posts: 537 |
|
|||
Right, sure in the land of make believe. |
||||
|
||||
|
GolfDude
Posts: 69 |
|
|||
|
i think funimations lawyer's mistepped.. i dont think they are doing defamation on fuinimation(i dont think they are, they never said any defamatory statements like monica,ron and jamie's twitters had), but for wrongful termination of contract, due to an improper (a private investigation that was spoken of publicly by non parties before ANY investigation was known, therefore can be collusion among parties, thus immediately clouding doubt any any claims being made) and incomplete "investigation" was hastily decided on before all evidence was shown could be proven true or false.. the filing shows the time lines DO NOT match up to the time lines of certain people knowing of the investigation.. i dont think 3 phone calls and 5 days in suffiecient time for an "invesigation".. using tabloid articles as proof? im sorry, thats extremely weak, did tenbow talk to those outlets to get information for the investigation.. she never says that in the filings.. so how can she verify those stories which all were released at he same time were true?
the filing says hanleia twitter post started this and denbow said they called 2 con goers for testimony.. umm how would she know who to contact? how can you verify their stories over a PHONE INTERVIEW? did these people have witnesses that can say that they were there, was this reported to someone who can verify this?who told her the names of these random people? how did denbow know of monica's incident with vic that would have her ask her for testimony? how would she know about a former funimation's employee's incident from before sony even took over? who gave her that information? who is the infromation leaker to denbow that told her to talk to these 4 specific people? that all likely had the same identical story (which in my eyes sounds like collusion among the 4) Last edited by GolfDude on Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||
|
||||
|
ZiharkXVI
Posts: 366 |
|
|||
|
Just as a recommendation to ANN in publishing this as a story...it isn't one. Wait until the judge decides what to do with said motion. There will be countless motions to dismiss, for summary judgment, for production of disclosure, for depositions, so on and so forth by each of the named parties. The only folks it will mean anything to are the parties and the lawyers themselves. Everyone else is merely speculating. Another reason why a lawsuit is the proper forum for all of this. I agree these topics bring out a lot of people peddling false information, but unless one of these people on the forum are the parties in the lawsuit, what can you expect? Nobody actually knows anything - and I'm vaguely amused when people comment on a motion to dismiss saying it means something. It means that attorneys are working and doing their job exploring every possible legal resolution for their clients. Just a thought when I read the warning post. It would cut down on all the people creating accounts just to blow up the topic with opinions since these topics invite speculation.
|
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group