Forum - View topic

INTEREST: The Mignogna Deposition

All of the defendants have since filed motions to dismiss the suit.

Only one link works...?

nothing has happened yet. Vic filed a lawsuit and then Funi, Monica and Ron and Jamie filed motions to dismiss. so far a hearing has been set for Aug 8th and then the judge has a month to make a decision

Quote:

All of the defendants have since filed motions to dismiss the suit.

I haven't kept up with this case because of all the blatant misinformation being thrown around by people who weren't there and made up their minds who they wanted to believe before any testimony was given, but can I assume that this quote means that either:

1. The defendants realized Mignogna's actions weren't sexual in nature.
or
2. A settlement was reached.

I would like a definitive followup on this, as a settlement usually indicates a crime was committed (I know that's not always the case, but I'd sure as hell never settle a lawsuit like this if I was innocent, especially with how high-profile this case was).

Funimation, Marchi, and Monica Rial and Ronald Toye have filed separate anti-SLAPP motions to dismiss Mignogna's suits against them. Rial and Toye filed a motion dismiss the the case based on Texas Citizen's Participation Act (TCPA) on July 19. The act is the state of Texas's law to protect individuals from Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) lawsuits. A "SLAPP suit" is a lawsuit designed to hinder individual(s) from speaking freely, but is otherwise without merit, under threat of the suit itself or its potential financial cost. According to TexasLawHelp.org: "The lawsuit can be filed by the plaintiff on different grounds (reasons) like libel or tortious interference, but the point of a SLAPP suit is to silence the defendant regardless of whether the lawsuit has merit."

If the court dismisses the case under the TCPA, Rial, Toye, Marchi, and Funimation could be awarded the cost of their attorney fees. Rial and Toye are also seeking financial sanctions against Mignogna. Lemoine writes that Mignogna is a public figure and the lawsuit is "an all-out assault on Ms. Rial's and Toye's right of free speech to comment on a matter of public concern, i.e. Plaintiff's conduct with children and women both in public and — more insidiously — behind closed doors."

Lemoine argues that Mignogna has failed to show clear and specific evidence necessary to establish all the elements of his claims of defamation, tortious interference with contracts, and tortious interference with prospective business relations, conspiracy against Rial and Toye. Lemoine also asserts that Mignogna is libel proof, arguing that rumors of Mignogna's alleged conduct have followed him for years and thus he cannot ascertain damages. Mignogna stated during his deposition that did not know how much in damages he is seeking in his lawsuit and could not put an amount on damages incurred due to actions by the defendants.

I assumed the defendants were dismissing the case against Vic

Quote:

All of the defendants have since filed motions to dismiss the suit.

I haven't kept up with this case because of all the blatant misinformation being thrown around by people who weren't there and made up their minds who they wanted to believe before any testimony was given, but can I assume that this quote means that either:

1. The defendants realized Mignogna's actions weren't sexual in nature.
or
2. A settlement was reached.

I would like a definitive followup on this, as a settlement usually indicates a crime was committed (I know that's not always the case, but I'd sure as hell never settle a lawsuit like this if I was innocent, especially with how high-profile this case was).

Nick4x wrote:

I assumed the defendants were dismissing the case against Vic

uhhhh you know who is suing who, right

If you're sincerely interested in avoiding misinformation, I highly suggest following Twitter Lawyers' take on the entire situation -- since June's infamous lawsuit letter (wherein Vic's lawyers cited a tweet calling him "a piece of shit"[/url] as defamatory), they've been professionally dismantling how laughable this entire case is. (Greg Doucette's typically everyone's go-to guy, but Mike Dunford's meticulous analyses are a personal favorite.

During later questioning by Marchi's lawyer Sam Johnson, Mignogna reiterated that he did not recall whether he said anything in Marchi's ear but if he did, he denied it was sexual.

Isn't Greg Doucette the guy who filed for bankruptcy twice and only has 3 cases on Westlaw which says he lost all 3 of them? That man tweets 400 times a day which means he tweets once every 3 minutes or so. Not sure that's a guy I would listen to.