NO. 02-19-00394-CV In the Court of Appeals Second Judicial District Fort Worth, Texas VICTOR MIGNOGNA, Appellant, v. FUNIMATION PRODUCTIONS, LLC, JAMIE MARCHI, MONICA RIAL and RONALD TOYE, Appellees APPELLANT’S BRIEF Oral Argument Requested BEARD HARRIS BULLOCK CHRISTIE MARTINEZ HSU, P.C. Ty Beard (SBOT 00796181) Michael Martinez Carey-Elisa Christie An Lee Hsu 100 Independence Place Ryan Sellers Suite 300 4001 Airport Freeway Tyler, Texas 75703 Suite 150 T: (903) 509-4900 Bedford, Texas 76021 F: (903) 509-4908 T: (682) 224-7810 [email protected] F: (682)730-8998 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Jim E. Bullock [email protected] 5 Cowboys Way Suite 300 Frisco, Texas 75034 T: (903) 509-4900 F: (903) 509-4908 [email protected] Attorneys for Appellant Identity of Parties & Counsel Appellant The attorneys representing Victor Mignogna are: Victor Mignogna, plaintiff in the trial court. Ty Beard Carey-Elisa Christie BEARD HARRIS BULLOCK CHRISTIE 100 Independence Place, Suite 300 Tyler, Texas 75703 T: (903) 509-4900 F: (903) 509-4908 [email protected] [email protected] Jim E. Bullock BEARD HARRIS BULLOCK CHRISTIE 5 Cowboys Way, Suite 300 Frisco, Texas 75034 T: (903) 509-4900 F: (903) 509-4908 [email protected] Michael Martinez An Lee Hsu Ryan Sellers MARTINEZ HSU, P.C. 4001 Airport Freeway, Suite 150 Bedford, Texas 76021 T: (682) 224-7810 F: (682)730-8998 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] APPELLANT’S BRIEF i Appellees The attorneys representing Funimation Funimation Productions, LLC, Productions, LLC, are: defendant in the trial court. John Volney Christian Orozco LYNN PINKER COX & HURST, LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 981-3800 Fax: (214) 981-3839 [email protected] [email protected] Jamie Marchi, defendant in the The attorney representing Jamie Marchi is: trial court. Samuel Johnson JOHNSON & SPARKS, PLLC 7161 Bishop Road, Suite 220 Plano, Texas 75024 Telephone: (972) 918-5274 Fax: (972) 918-5274 [email protected] Monica Rial and Ronald Toye, The attorneys representing Monica Rial and defendants in the trial court. Ronald Toye are: Rusty J. O’Kane J. Sean Lemoine WICK PHILLIPS GOULD & MARTIN, LLP 3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75204 Telephone: (214) 692-6200 Fax: (214) 692-6255 [email protected] [email protected] Casey Erick COWLES & THOMPSON, P.C. 901 Main Street, Suite 3900 Dallas, Texas 75202 Telephone: (214) 672-2000 APPELLANT’S BRIEF ii Fax: (214)672-2338 [email protected] Andrea Perez CARRINGTON, COLEMAN, SLOMAN & BLUMENTHAL, LLP 901 Main Street, Suite 5500 Dallas, Texas 75205 Telephone: (214) 855-3070 Fax: (214) 855-1333 [email protected] APPELLANT’S BRIEF iii Table of Contents Identity of Parties & Counsel ................................................................................................. i Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. iv Index of Authorities .............................................................................................................. vi Statement of the Case ......................................................................................................... viii Issues Presented ..................................................................................................................... ix Statement of Facts .................................................................................................................. 1 Summary of the Argument .................................................................................................... 8 Argument & Authorities ........................................................................................................ 9 A. The trial court’s dismissing Appellant’s claims against Appellees for defamation is reversible error. [Point of Error 1] ............................................................................. 11 1. Jamie’s Tweets ....................................................................................................... 12 2. Monica’s Tweets .................................................................................................... 13 3. Ronald’s Tweets .................................................................................................... 14 4. Funimation’s Tweets ............................................................................................. 16 B. The trial court’s dismissing Appellant’s claims against Appellees for tortious interference with existing contracts is reversible error. [Point of Error 2]................ 18 C. The trial court’s dismissing Appellant’s claims against Appellees for tortious interference with prospective business relations is reversible error. [Point of Error 3] ..................................................................................................................................... 20 D. The trial court’s dismissing Appellant’s claims against Funimation Productions, LLC, for vicarious liability is reversible error. [Point of Error 4] ............................... 21 1. Funimation exercised control; Monica & Jamie acted like employees ........... 22 2. Monica & Jamie were acting with authority when tweeting ............................ 24 E. The trial court’s dismissing Appellant’s claims against Appellees for conspiracy is reversible error. [Point of Error 5] ............................................................................. 28 1. Vic’s conspiracy claim is not subject to the TCPA. .......................................... 28 2. Vic presented a prima facie case of conspiracy ................................................. 30 F. The trial court’s refusal to consider Appellant’s second amended petition is reversible error. [Point of Error 6] ................................................................................. 33 G. Appellees did not satisfy their evidentiary burden, because the trial court should have struck the evidence attached to their motions to dismiss. [Point of Error 7] .. 35 APPELLANT’S BRIEF iv 1. Funimation’s Motion to Dismiss Evidence ....................................................... 36 2. Monica’s & Ronald’s Motion to Dismiss Evidence .......................................... 39 H. The trial court’s ordering Vic to pay Appellees’ legal fees and sanctions is reversible error [Point of Error 8]. ................................................................................. 47 Conclusion & Prayer ............................................................................................................ 47 Certificate of Compliance .................................................................................................... 49 APPELLANT’S BRIEF v Index of Authorities Cases Agar Corp., Inc. v. Electro Circuits Int'l, LLC, 580 S.W.3d 136 (Tex. 2019), reh’g denied (Sept. 6, 2019) ....................................................................................................... 28 Barham v. Sugar Creek National Bank, 612 S.W.2d 78 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, no writ) ............................................................................................... 36 Beving v. Beadles, 563 S.W.3d 399 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018, pet. denied) ............ .................................................................................................................... 10, 11, 21, 24, 29 Boyd v. Texas Christian University, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 758 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999, no pet.) ......................................................................................................................... 37, 44 Brugger v. Swinford, 14-16-00069-CV, 2016 WL 4444036 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 23, 2016, no pet.) ................................................................................ 10 Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner, 451 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014), aff’d, 505 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2016) .................................................... 34, 35 Cunningham v. Waymire, 14-17-00883-CV, 2019 WL 5382597 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 22, 2019, no pet.) ................................................................................. 28 D Magazine Partners, L.P. v. Rosenthal, 529 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. 2017), reh’g denied (Sept. 29, 2017)............................................................................................... 10, 11, 16, 18 Dallas Morning News, Inc. v. Hall, 17-0637, 2019 WL 2063576 (Tex. May 10, 2019) ... ......................................................................................................................................... 9, 11 DeAngelis v. Protective Parents Coalition, 556 S.W.3d 836 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018, no pet.) ..................................................................................................................... 35 Deleon v. Villareal, 02-19-00133-CV, 2020 WL 98142 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 9, 2020, no pet. h.), reh’g denied (Jan. 30, 2020) ............................................................... 26 Diamond Consortium, Inc. v. Hammervold, 733 Fed. Appx. 151 (5th Cir. 2018), reh’g denied (June 4, 2018) .................................................................................................. 10, 11 Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Rincones, 520 S.W.3d 572 (Tex. 2017) ..................... 22, 23 First United Pentecostal Church of Beaumont v. Parker,