Vic Mignogna Files to Begin Appeals Process Against Dismissal of Defamation Lawsuit

Spencer Baculi |

Oct 25, 2019

After having every cause of action dismissed in his defamation lawsuit against Funimation, Jamie Marchi, Monica Rial and Ron Toye, Dragon Ball Super: Broly voice actor Vic Mignogna has officially filed to appeal the dismissal ruling.

Mignogna’s appeal was first hinted at by attorney and YouTube host Nick Rekieta who stated that Mignogna was “going to appeal every single dismissed cause of action.”

Mignogna’s appeal has now been confirmed, with an October 24^th filing stating that Mignogna will appeal the decision to the Texas Second District Court of Appeals.

10/24 – the appeal has been electronically filed pic.twitter.com/WiqwLpE78T

— HeroHei (@_Hero_Hei_) October 24, 2019

Additionally, a hearing for Funimation, Marchi, Rial and Toye to request “Sanctions and Attorney’s Fees” has been set for November 21^st, 2019 at 10:30 AM. The request will be heard before Judge John P. Chupp, the Tarrant County judge who previously ruled to dismiss all of Mignogna’s causes of action.

Upon receiving news that Mignogna had filed to appeal, J. Sean Lemoine, the attorney representing Rial and Toye, penned a letter to Judge Chupp accusing the appeal of being “legally improper” and noted his intent to “file a Motion to dismiss as soon as the clerk issues a cause number.”

Nick Rekieta reads the letter below.

Lemoine accused the filing of impropriety, due to it being filed before a “final judgement” had been made on said sanctions and attorney’s fees:

“As Plaintiff acknowledges in his Notice of Appeal, he does not appeal a final judgment (“Vic desires to appeal the Order Granting Defendants’ [Motions to Dismiss] (and all orders granting fees, costs or sanctions thereafter).” Emphasis added.).”

Lemoine also requests that “the Court enter an Order on Defendants’ Omnibus Objections to Plaintiff’s TCPA Evidence” and that “the Court strike the Second Amended Petition in its entirety” due to his belief that “Plaintiff will undoubtedly attempt to rely on the Second Amended Petition on appeal.”

“Again, we agree that the Court correctly noted in the Order that it excluded the attachments to the Second Amended Petition. However, allowing the Plaintiff to effectively ambush the Defendants with a late filed pleading—even absent its attached evidence—furthers the Plaintiff’s improper strategy. Without a clear exclusion of the petition, as well as the evidence, Plaintiff will undoubtedly attempt to rely on the Second Amended Petition on appeal. A ruling on the objection raised as to the filing of the Second Amended Petition would also allow the Court of Appeals to determine if Plaintiff’s tactics are appropriate, and also avoid remand on this issue.”

A copy of this letter was also issued to “all counsel of record.”