, 38 tweets, 14 min read
My Authors
Read all threads
Good [insert time of day as appropriate for timezone/personal preference] #Threadnought!

New filings.

We have Plaintiff's responses to the Funi & Toye/Rial motions for sanctions - relevant to the hearing in 2 hours. Nothing up for Marchi yet. I'll have them up in a minute.
Taking a minute or two longer than I expected - technical issues here.

Based on fonts and formatting, these are from Martinez Hsu, not from BHBWhoever.
Here's the links -
Toye/Rial dropbox.com/s/9zhavezor8uf…

Funi dropbox.com/s/sungrbhkji09…

I'll start with Funi. Someone please let me know if a livetweet starts from the hearing.
Starting with the Funimation one. There is a prayer for relief this time.

It's asking for denial of the request for fees (among other things) which is a pretty big ask when fees are statutorily mandated so this should be a good read.
OK. The first paragraph is actually not consistent with the prayer - they're not asking for outright denial, just denial as to excessive fees. So the prayer for relief was a bit sloppy.

The paragraph itself isn't bad, until we get to the last sentence, which is awful.
Seriously - everything until "Further, Defendant seeks these sanctions only to punish Plaintiff for his public participation." was reasonable and well stated.

That final sentence is rank nonsense displaying a lack of comprehension for the purposes of the law.
I kind of hope they try and argue that position, tbh. Because the whole point of anti-SLAPP motions is that there's no right to participate in a public discussion through the expressive activity of dragging people into meritless lawsuits.
Most of this next paragraph contains standard objections to fee requests. Can't really judge the reasonableness of the objections until seeing how they're applied to the specific entries.
Hey, what do you know?

Sellers learned how to cite. One of the two cases - Dinkins - contains an inapplicable parenthetical, but these are really citations.

That minor snark aside, this is still exactly what I'd expect to see in a filing prepared by a lawyer.
These factors are pretty standard - different jurisdictions formulate them differently, but something like them is in use pretty much everywhere in the USA.
This is also standard, and I expect it will be recycled in the other responses.
Paragraph 8 starts well, but then goes off the rails.

Fee awards and sanctions are built into the TCPA because dragging people into court without evidence is not a legitimate means of public participation.
Block billing is a thing & can be an issue in attorney's fee cases, although how it is dealt with varies extensively. Without seeing more - which we won't until we see a hearing transcript - can't really evaluate this one. But it's not obviously unreasonable on its face.
And, frankly, the redactions issue strikes me as a reasonable point. Although here, again, I'm going to withhold judgment until I see more.
That said, it's worth noting that the plaintiff's lawyers have thoughtfully given the defense time to address and rectify these points at the hearing.
Here, we're drifting into less reasonable territory a bit. Associates and partners don't do exactly the same things, and experience pays off in speed. It doesn't strike me as unreasonable for an associate to spend twice as long to prep for a hearing.
And if you want a class of entries to be reduced or excluded, you flipping well need to identify with specificity each and every one. Nobody in chambers has time to do that for you.
There may be a case to be made that $410 is excessive for an associate with 18 months total experience. This doesn't make that case.

In part that's because they don't provide an appropriate rate.

Mostly, it's because they suck at research. Orozco was admitted in CA in 2012.
Seriously, it took me 3 minutes to figure that out. Clown shoes strike again.
And if you're going to pick a month to use as an example for too much conferencing, maybe don't pick the month when they were responding to the hellfiling? Because maybe you don't want to open that can of worms?
Oh my, no. You have erred, I think, really quite badly.

Mr. Volney just filed a motion that made it clear that there is no longer time or tolerance. You're arriving for a hearing with Mr. Volney at any moment. And you thought it wise to use the phrase "padding his bill"?
Also, you're complaining about time spent meeting with counsel for other defendants on the Day of the Hellfiling?

Not wise, IMO.
Watching videos of Ty discussing the case has no relevance to the case?

And "attempting to silence"? Again? As a theme for the opposition to this motion, "too much attention paid to Nick" isn't bad. "They're trying to silence the person who filed the SLAPP" is awful.
This could possibly be a good argument, but there's no way to know for sure because it's not developed at all. Maybe they can save it at hearing, but if that's the plan, why put it into the written opposition when all that does is give Volney warning?
Speaking of giving Volney warning - do these people not get that the hearing today is an evidentiary hearing?
Moving on to the sanctions opposition, I'm *REALLY* not sure this is the way I would have phrased this.

I mean really, really not the way I would have phrased it.
And I'm also not sure that I would have conceded that Lemoine's factors are appropriate. Think I would have tried to use the argument that @MDMcCullough made instead.
@MDMcCullough Blinking. Blinking more.

Still blinking.

Gonna get more coffee. Maybe that will help.
@MDMcCullough Mr. Volney hath shown that he is done with thine shenanigans, yea even unto the seventh generation. And you just told him, right before an evidentiary hearing, that he has "no evidence of bad faith, willfulness, vindictiveness, negligence, or frivolousness on Plaintiff’s part."
@MDMcCullough Even if we set aside the wisdom of the whole "we had viable causes of action, just no evidence" thing - which is a big ask - that strikes me as An. Very. Bad. Idea.
@MDMcCullough This paragraph, too -

Did you really want to go with "we dragged Funimation into court with no evidence but Funimation is worse than us"? Really?

Also - widow/orphan issues. Learn to fix them.
@MDMcCullough Oh myyyy. Ummm. Right.

Let's compare that with the hearing transcript, shall we?
@MDMcCullough Real soon now:
Judge Chupp: "The fundraising isn't paid to the Plaintiff?"
Plaintiff's "Team": "Right, judge."
Judge Chupp: "So who does it go to?"
Plaintiff's "Team": "It goes directly to the Plaintiff's lawyers."
@MDMcCullough And this final part also does a great job teeing up several more issues for the defense to take a swing at in 30 minutes.

They better hope that nobody is prepared to put on evidence regarding "Round 2" or anything Ty said on Nick's show.
@MDMcCullough Overall:
(1) This isn't bad in places. It's still well better than anything BHBWhoever has produced.
(2) I'd still predict just on general principles that everyone (except maybe Marchi) is getting at least a 10%-ish haircut on the fees.
@MDMcCullough That said:
(3) There are too many things that weren't done here. If you get itemized billing, there's no excuse for failing to produce itemized objections.
(4) You don't ever say "all entries that do X should be denied without identifying all entries that do X."
@MDMcCullough (5) And there was a hellacious amount of self-sabotage in there. Especially since:
(6) The defense will have read these. But if they were submitted after business hours yesterday, Judge Chupp may not have.
@MDMcCullough The hearing starts soon, so I won't do a thread on the Toye/Rial one. And no idea what's up with the Marchi thing. Maybe they're conceding all those fees, but no opposition to sanctions either?
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Enjoying this thread?

Keep Current with Mike Dunford

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!