- Joined
- May 24, 2019
Only for their lawyers. Funimation will keep them on because they're willing to be paid peanuts as long as they can go to conventions (where nobody visits their booths so they're also paid peanuts), lol.
Victor Mignogna v. Funimation Productions, LLC, et al. (2019) - Vic's lawsuit against Funimation, VAs, and others, for over a million dollars.
- Thread starter 5t3n0g0ph3r
- Start date
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
Just remember that is always John Goodman and you'll be fine.I'm still finding it tough to recognise your posts with your new avatar, pls change back.
- Joined
- May 24, 2019
TBH I miss the puppy-dog eyed face of his old avatar. I couldn't get mad at him, it was disarming. And kind of cute.
- Joined
- May 13, 2019
I think I handled this situation rather well unlike Tuscan. I may have replied to it, but only after it filled an entire page of it's spergy nonsense. I hardly consider one quote reply to it hardly constitutes being in the same category as Tuscan.
Garm
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2019
At this point I think that Sabat and Fukunaga are just going to burn down Funimation at this point with a middle finger in the air at Sony just to spite Vic even if it fucks over the anime industry as a whole.
HighwayStar
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2019
Imagine being a multi-million dollar corporation that's willing to destroy their own reputation, alienate their own fans, suffer lots of PR embarrassment and even cost their parent money (Sony) revenue just to get back at one man, all because he chose to fight back and not kill himself after what they did to him and his career. Disgraceful.
On a side note @AnOminous, I love your new John Goodman avatar. Don't let that smartass @Bender tell you otherwise.
- Joined
- May 24, 2019
Awww, bless your heart, you said I'm smart. ❤On a side note @AnOminous, I love your new John Goodman avatar. Don't let that smartass @Bender tell you otherwise.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2019
There's no way in hell Monica and Jamie aren't blacklisted after this. Not by Funimation. By Sony. They cost Sony half a million or so in legal and administration fees and risked exposing a lot of dirty laundry, such as the FuniLeaks or the fact that Sony faked a HR investigation, to the world. They have blacklisted people for far less.
Riku
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2020
Nice to see the sperging removed, guess it was late night even in the US. Anyway, the pic of Nick grandfather, really? Such level of sadness&pettyness could only belong to KV+Lawtwits+Jamie+Monica, but meh screw them all anyway.
Sure hope every dumb VA who got caught with those 2 gets his/her right serving, they all do deserve to face the consequences of their actions&choices. My country is finally about to reopen stuff, hope the US will be the same as soon as the situation gets better.
Sure hope every dumb VA who got caught with those 2 gets his/her right serving, they all do deserve to face the consequences of their actions&choices. My country is finally about to reopen stuff, hope the US will be the same as soon as the situation gets better.
- Joined
- May 13, 2019
Apparently the sperg was on an hour ago before their account was completely nuked.Nice to see the sperging removed, guess it was late night even in the US. Anyway, the pic of Nick grandfather, really? Such level of sadness&pettyness could only belong to KV+Lawtwits+Jamie+Monica, but meh screw them all anyway.
Sure hope every dumb VA who got caught with those 2 gets his/her right serving, they all do deserve to face the consequences of their actions&choices. My country is finally about to reopen stuff, hope the US will be the same as soon as the situation gets better.
- Joined
- May 17, 2019
Never underestimate the insanity of the woke. Hell, I expect Jamie and Monica to #MeToo Sony execs they likely sucked off as a final "fuck you" before they get blacklisted out of existence.
Five Percent
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2019
I honestly want to know if there's a story that goes with this, other than 'i just like John Goodman'
Nontransferable
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2018
Law Twitter says they lost the case again. Apparently, the request for an extension was bungled and Vic waived his right to reply to Funimation and Jamie Marchi.
https://archive.vn/xnMnY
Here's the entire thread,
https://archive.vn/xnMnY
Here's the entire thread,
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
At this point I have to assume that reality is the opposite of whatever lawtwatter says.
e: That said, I did wonder about the extension at the time. It was specific about being a reply to MoRon's fee arguments. Does make me wonder what's going on behind the scenes.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2019
The document granting the Motion for extension of time to file Cross Appellee brief is available, BTW:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
It's gnat-fucking. Nothing will happen. The guys they're worshipping blew off their own deadline for their opening brief and didn't file for an extension until days after the deadline had passed. Nothing happened. They are not going to seize on hyper-technicalities to deny substantive rights.
It does look like they cut and pasted the signature block still listing Jim Bullock even though he was gone from their website at the latest by April 4, 2020, almost two weeks before the extension was filed on April 17. Keep up that attention to detail, guys.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2018
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure allow the sur-reply to be filed after the soft deadline, alongside a motion to extend.
TRAP 38.3
The appellant may file a reply brief addressing any matter in the appellee’s brief. However, the appellate court may consider and decide the case before a reply brief is filed.[
TRAP 38.6
(c) A reply brief, if any, must be filed within 20 days after the date the appellee's brief was filed.
(d) On motion complying with Rule 10.5(b), the appellate court may extend the time for filing a brief and may postpone submission of the case. A motion to extend the time to file a brief may be filed before or after the date a brief is due. The court may also, in the interests of justice, shorten the time for filing briefs and for submission of the case.
(d) On motion complying with Rule 10.5(b), the appellate court may extend the time for filing a brief and may postpone submission of the case. A motion to extend the time to file a brief may be filed before or after the date a brief is due. The court may also, in the interests of justice, shorten the time for filing briefs and for submission of the case.
Nick thinks the motion to extend the reply to the cross-appeal also covers their own reply brief. I disagree, but it does allow for them to argue that because they conferred with all counsel of record for the defendants and there was no objection to a motion to extend, and that both the sur-reply and the reply to the cross-appeal were due on the same day that there was an agreement to extend the sur-reply due date, especially with COVID hampering law offices. As you can see from TRAP 38.6 the motion to extend the deadline may be filed after the due date, and attached to the reply brief. There is 0% chance the appeals court does not grant that, and I'd wager they will also grant the attached motions for a word limit exceptions.
Nontransferable
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2018
Some of you may recall that there were similar musings here when Ron and Monica asked for an extension on both their opening brief as cross-appellants and response brief as appellees, and the court neglected to mention the response brief in their order granting the extension.
And then the court later released a letter saying that they had asked for that extension on May 3rd, 2019.
And then the court later released a letter saying that they had asked for that extension on May 3rd, 2019.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Yeah, we discussed exactly these rules for these kinds of combined briefs, that MoRon didn't exactly do them completely correctly, but that it also doesn't matter. It would be a lot better to refer to the document you're going to file as what it will be captioned as when you do file it, so that there's no ambiguity as to the briefing schedule (and maybe not "sign" it as a lawyer who is not even with your firm), but whatever.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2018
BUT REMEMBER WHEN VIC BEGGED FOR AN EXTENSION?!