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

[NotaLolyer]

I dunno. That might be the case if they didn't depose Vic first. Seems like the deposition knowledge went the other way, since Vic went first.

I know Vic went first.
Are you saying that because of what I said about Monica and her counsel? because I said they probably figured he asked her personally (privileged) to see what the damages could be if they swing this towards Funimation and then proceeded to ask Vic at depo more of the same questions and if he knew Monica’s positions and employment statutes because Monica didn’t satisfy his questions.

It also serves to see what kind of damages Vic is looking for and to confirm rumors if he thinks she took over his roles

 

[HTTP Error 404]

You have never been in a court room in your life. In the infinitely implausible case you even have a career it's even more pathetic than Mike Cernovich's.

Shows up and immediately runs to this thread to try and nut up, and then runs over to the Antifa thread to try and spread conspiracy theories about Trump somehow being responsible for Obama-Cages. Something tells me you'll get along GREAT here, new friend.

 

[AStupidMonkey]

I know Vic went first.
Are you saying that because of what I said about Monica and her counsel? because I said they probably figured he asked her personally (privileged) to see what the damages could be if they swing this towards Funimation and then proceeded to ask Vic at depo more of the same questions and if he knew Monica’s positions and employment statutes because Monica didn’t satisfy his questions.

It also serves to see what kind of damages Vic is looking for and to confirm rumors if he thinks she took over his roles

Well, first of all, they had every reason to believe Ty would respond in kind. He said so first, then he did it second. This is at least turn number 3.

As soon as it was clear they couldn't just TCPA-stay after Vic's deposition, they should have changed their strategy. (And they shouldn't have reversed it later either, when the TCPA was finally in-effect. Same as their first refusal to Ty's confidentiality agreement.)

Can't speculate on Monica's deposition. Haven't seen it yet. And even Nick said she was a "better deponent" than Ron. I tend to believe him too, in the sense that she was a better speaker and (heh) probably less hysterical than Ron, too.

We know who wears the strap-on in this relationship. And why. Even if we're being charitable.

Vic was deposed first. Yet we got his deposition second. Nick's not dumb. But I would still invest in popcorn this week.

 

[Cakeisjustok]

The firm maintains it, but it is held in trust for the benefit of Vic, meaning the firm has a fiduciary duty not to touch it except specifically for costs and fees itemized and billed. It bears interest, but the interest goes into a fund that benefits organizations that provide legal services to low income citizens.

The money is as safe as municipal bonds and Law Twitter has a bowl of crack and brain tumors for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

True but if they are going to argue a party has control of the funds, the only one that fits that is the firm. Nick can't access them, Vic can't access them, GoFundMe can't access them and BHBH can only do so with a paper trail. And you are right, law Twitter and the defense haven't figured that out yet.

 

[Wake me up]

The goal of those questions wasn't to obtain admissible testimony

I don't think it was to primarily get #KickVic material but instead I think it was, at several points, an attempt to get a rise out of Vic and then run with it as a legal strategy - not as an on-going Twitter harassment campaign strategy. Examples of attempts include "are you the Fuhrer", "you're asking for money to go sue and grind some women down" and asking him repeatedly about the details of his intimate sexual life, including cheating on his fiancée.

I have said it multiple times already: it's an absolute valid legal strategy, when you have 0% chance of winning, to shoot like a madman for any and all openings which might raise your odds by 1%. That's literally what your lawyer is being paid to do.

This is what those questions represent: if at any point Vic reacted negatively, got upset, threw an insult back to Lesoyne,then BAM he'd be instantly labelled as unstable, angry, out of control, aggressively predatorial, womanizer, etc and they'd push that agenda all the way through for the 1% chance it would give of convincing a jury of it being true if they squealed loud enough.

If that sounds exactly like the type of defamation and REEEing that has been going on on Twitter, that's because it's basically the same thing. It's what you do when you're losing a battle and you have no evidence, no right and no high ground to support yourself.

 

[ErbBetaPatch]

You have never been in a court room in your life. In the infinitely implausible case you even have a career it's even more pathetic than Mike Cernovich's.

Why thank you. Mike Cernovich singlehandedly put a spotlight on Epstein.

 

[Tight pantaloons]

First time post. I have a question for the kiwi law pro's, not sure if it's already been asked but I'm wondering, given that the case against funimation's TCPA is the weakest is it possible that Ty is expecting to lose it and is building up enough evidence to bring Funimation into a wrongful termination suit? It seems there's been a lot of talk about the contracts and Vic's termination and it strikes me as odd that there's so much focus on contracts...

 

[PrinceofAllCucks]

First time post. I have a question for the kiwi law pro's, not sure if it's already been asked but I'm wondering, given that the case against funimation's TCPA is the weakest is it possible that Ty is expecting to lose it and is building up enough evidence to bring Funimation into a wrongful termination suit? It seems there's been a lot of talk about the contracts and Vic's termination and it strikes me as odd that there's so much focus on contracts...

Wrongful termination isn't viable in Texas. It's an at-will state, meaning you could essentially be fired for no reason, so long as they go about the required process of releasing them. Talks of the contracts are mostly trying to figure out whether the VAs were employees rather than independent contractors, meaning Funimation would be held more solidly liable for tortious actions done on their behalf.

 

[Tight pantaloons]

Wrongful termination isn't viable in Texas. It's an at-will state, meaning you could essentially be fired for no reason, so long as they go about the required process of releasing them. Talks of the contracts are mostly trying to figure out whether the VAs were employees rather than independent contractors, meaning Funimation would be held more solidly liable for tortious actions done on their behalf.

Ok that clears that up a bit, but what about the Texas white paper that's referred to? Could that play some part in the FUNI situation?

 

[Kosher Salt]

Wrongful termination isn't viable in Texas. It's an at-will state, meaning you could essentially be fired for no reason, so long as they go about the required process of releasing them. Talks of the contracts are mostly trying to figure out whether the VAs were employees rather than independent contractors, meaning Funimation would be held more solidly liable for tortious actions done on their behalf.

Vic was an independent contractor, so if Vic eventually gets enough evidence to go after Funimation for firing him, it would probably be for claims of negligence and breach of contract.

Ok that clears that up a bit, but what about the Texas white paper that's referred to? Could that play some part in the FUNI situation?

I would think that white paper could be used to argue that Funimation had a duty (the first element of negligence) to investigate the allegations fairly and that they breached their duty (the second element) by not following the guidelines laid out in the white paper. Because Vic was fired as a result of that investigation, Funimation's breach of their duty to investigate was the proximate cause of damages to Vic.

The catch is that if the white paper is only a guideline, it probably isn't legally binding, and in that case it might not actually suffice to create a "duty."

 

[Tight pantaloons]

Vic was an independent contractor, so if Vic eventually gets enough evidence to go after Funimation for firing him, it would probably be for claims of negligence and breach of contract.

I would think that white paper could be used to argue that Funimation had a duty (the first element of negligence) to investigate the allegations fairly and that they breached their duty (the second element) by not following the guidelines laid out in the white paper. Because Vic was fired as a result of that investigation, Funimation's breach of their duty to investigate was the proximate cause of damages to Vic.

The catch is that if the white paper is only a guideline, it probably isn't legally binding, and in that case it might not actually suffice to create a "duty."

Ok... I'm not too familiar with US law (I'm English) this whole lawsuit has been rather educational but has left me with a few questions, glad the kiwi's could help me gain a better understanding, nice one

 

[Wake me up]

Vic was an independent contractor,

Vic's status as an independent contractor has been put into question. Apparently Funimation's "independent" contract has clauses like exclusivity which would make such an agreement actually employment by the definition of law. Nick has a copy of the contract and I would imagine he'll go over that sometime this week or next.

That's a fairly common practice for companies that contract "independently" - to say they are not employing but still asking for employment-like restrictions from their contractors, because this way they get the best of both worlds and profit from it. Whether they do it intentionally, out of incompetence, because they can't afford to hire full-time, etc varies on a case-by-case basis, I'd imagine and I wouldn't know where Ruination falls in the spectrum.

If that comes out in court, it actually may leave Funi wide open to a class action lawsuit too. Imagine being sued by every single voice actor you've ever hired, when a court has previously determined your contracting arrangements to be unlawful.

 

[The Cunting Death]

Just got caught up on The Desposition of Vic videos Rekieta did

Holy fuck that was some brutal shit.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Vic's status as an independent contractor has been put into question. Apparently Funimation's "independent" contract has clauses like exclusivity which would make such an agreement actually employment by the definition of law. Nick has a copy of the contract and I would imagine he'll go over that sometime this week or next.

That's a fairly common practice for companies that contract "independently" - to say they are not employing but still asking for employment-like restrictions from their contractors, because this way they get the best of both worlds and profit from it. Whether they do it intentionally, out of incompetence, because they can't afford to hire full-time, etc varies on a case-by-case basis, I'd imagine and I wouldn't know where Ruination falls in the spectrum.

If that comes out in court, it actually may leave Funi wide open to a class action lawsuit too. Imagine being sued by every single voice actor you've ever hired, when a court has previously determined your contracting arrangements to be unlawful.

I honestly believe Funimation would be this incompetent and fuck up something as basic as a contracting arrangement. The entire anime industry in the USA reeks of amateur hour shenanigans. The whole thing spun out of fan clubs in the 90's from the conventions to the dubbing studios and its clear they never really moved on from that. They only seem to have the barest grasp of what is required of ANY business (like your corner bar) let alone one that engages in multi-million dollar productions. We've already seen them make mistakes a 7-11 Franchisee would never make, like say, claiming to speak for 7-11 itself in negotiations with a supplier. The Franchisee would never be so stupid, and if they were 7-11 corporate would come down on them with the fury of an angry god. You have got to think that Funimation would know better then a convenience store operator, but it makes you wonder.

Add to this they don't have any in house human resources management, their only legal counsel of record until recently was an IP pirate litigator whose only job was to send threatening letters to Weebs pirating Funimation dubs. This whole house of cards worked for them because nobody blew on it. But for some reason back in January their entire stable of voice actors decided to lose their freaking minds. And now they don't got a leg to stand on. They have to win the TCPA, or else they are fucked.

 

[RodgerDodger]

Well, first of all, they had every reason to believe Ty would respond in kind. He said so first, then he did it second. This is at least turn number 3.

As soon as it was clear they couldn't just TCPA-stay after Vic's deposition, they should have changed their strategy. (And they shouldn't have reversed it later either, when the TCPA was finally in-effect. Same as their first refusal to Ty's confidentiality agreement.)

Can't speculate on Monica's deposition. Haven't seen it yet. And even Nick said she was a "better deponent" than Ron. I tend to believe him too, in the sense that she was a better speaker and (heh) probably less hysterical than Ron, too.

We know who wears the strap-on in this relationship. And why. Even if we're being charitable.

Vic was deposed first. Yet we got his deposition second. Nick's not dumb. But I would still invest in popcorn this week.

You’re making a few incorrect assumptions. Mainly by equating the currently filed TCPA with Monica and Ron, or any of Casey’s idiotic confidentiality decisions. The current and right now only TCPA is Funimations. They didn’t drop it late. They only likely delayed filing it by a few days so they got to hear what the other parties got at deposition. Which would be useful to them. It is doubtful Funi and MoRonica’s Lawyers are in any way coordinating. In fact Funi would seem to be shoving the VA’s straight under the bus. While the VA’s attempt to stick Funi with the bill.

 

[Loose Handle]

We know who wears the strap-on in this relationship. And why. Even if we're being charitable.

They both do. Although I suppose Ron's is more of a prosthetic due to the severe lack of testosterone exposure in the womb.

 

[TexOffender]

Vic was an independent contractor, so if Vic eventually gets enough evidence to go after Funimation for firing him, it would probably be for claims of negligence and breach of contract.

I would think that white paper could be used to argue that Funimation had a duty (the first element of negligence) to investigate the allegations fairly and that they breached their duty (the second element) by not following the guidelines laid out in the white paper. Because Vic was fired as a result of that investigation, Funimation's breach of their duty to investigate was the proximate cause of damages to Vic.

The catch is that if the white paper is only a guideline, it probably isn't legally binding, and in that case it might not actually suffice to create a "duty."

Removing Vic from the credits can also come into play since him being a contractor, there's no citation for him on the published work.

 

[Make Anime Illegal]

I honestly believe Funimation would be this incompetent and fuck up something as basic as a contracting arrangement.

They didn't (dont?) Even have a registered agent setup correctly, clearly they are legally incompetent.

 

[Prompt Critical]

Wrongful termination isn't viable in Texas. It's an at-will state, meaning you could essentially be fired for no reason, so long as they go about the required process of releasing them.

Just as a quick observation, this is a common misconception in many at-will states and it's not even close to correct. "At-will" should be read as "at-will, as long as you follow the entire vast catalog of state and federal restrictions on hiring/firing" and there is a pretty long list of exceptions that can still allow a wrongful termination suit to go forward in every at-will state.

In Texas (someone with more experience in Texas specific law specifically can correct me if I'm wrong but I skimmed a few state legal websites) a wrongful termination suit can be brought if any of the following apply:

breach of contract or implied contract
violation of protected class status or discrimination based on protected class
retaliation for exercising a legally protected right
harassment by employer ("constructive termination")
refusal to perform illegal acts
violation of civil rights

It'd be interesting to see a detailed breakdown on which of these, if any, could apply to this case. In particular:

Harassment by an employer can include many types of behavior including: exclusion from key meetings and information, applying double standards to employees, adding or removing an employee’s workload, withdrawing support from an employee, increasing criticism of an employee, setting impossible performance expectations, or spreading defamatory comments about an employee.

If an employer is aware of harassment occurring but takes no actions to remedy this behavior, an employee treating can be viewed as “constructive termination”, which means the equivalent of wrongful termination even though an employee has quit their position.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Just as a quick observation, this is a common misconception in many at-will states and it's not even close to correct. "At-will" should be read as "at-will, as long as you follow the entire vast catalog of state and federal restrictions on hiring/firing" and there is a pretty long list of exceptions that can still allow a wrongful termination suit to go forward in every at-will state.

In Texas (someone with more experience in Texas specific law specifically can correct me if I'm wrong but I skimmed a few state legal websites) a wrongful termination suit can be brought if any of the following apply:

breach of contract or implied contract
violation of protected class status or discrimination based on protected class
retaliation for exercising a legally protected right
harassment by employer ("constructive termination")
refusal to perform illegal acts
violation of civil rights

It'd be interesting to see a detailed breakdown on which of these, if any, could apply to this case. In particular:

Would BHBH be able to add wrongful termination to their pleading depending on what they get from discovery, at this point?

I'd find it funny; Shane's Google-Fu and Discord supplied him with the idea that Vic had no shot with suing for TI with contract, when the only thing Nick was arguing (at the time) was TI with business prospects. Then enough info is found out that when the pleading is filed, they allege both with a decent case for both.

...and then the KC texts come up, and we find that Ron is screwed.