Law Weekly v. CoPA Copiers
999 U.Va 963 (2019)
SCHMALZL, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which RANZINI, ELICEGUI, and WELCH, JJ., joined.
Chief Justice SHMAZZLE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Facts
A short time ago, the Law Weekly received an email from a seemingly innocent group of 1Ls at another law school. “Dear Editor,” they began, “we are 1L students at [$10 if you can guess the law school]. We recently came across an edition of your Virginia Law Review Weekly[1]and were inspired by your ‘Court of Petty Appeals’ column.”
“Inspired?” this Court thought. We read on:
“We do not have anything similar at [seriously, $10 if you guess which law school this is from] and we would love to get something started! Given your long and successful history, we were hoping that you could answer a few questions and give us some advice as we take the first steps to develop our own version.”
The Court read the rest of these starry-eyed, confused 1Ls’ questions, which included questions about the constitution this Court follows,[2]how we develop our common-law system and when a case is established as binding precedent,[3]as well as how parties argue their cases. This Court was extremely flattered that someone thought we have an actual processfor how we do things here, but this Court also couldn’t believe someone thought we have an actualprocess for how we do things here. Therefore, the Law Weekly did what any attorney would do: We sued them.
The Complaint
The Law Weeklymembers sue on two main counts. First, plaintiffs complain of an attempted copyright infringement since defendants are trying to take their idea and replicate it in a different market; they seek an injunction barring the new wannabe-CoPA. Second, plaintiffs allege negligent gullibility in believing that the CoPA justices actually have any reasonable method to how they (aka we) write opinions, and that this Court provides any type of “due process” in allowing people to argue for themselves; on this claim, plaintiffs seek damages to punish defendants for their senselessness. The Court addresses each issue in turn.
Attempted Copyright Infringement
First, the claim that defendants are infringing on a Law Weeklycopyright by trying to create their own version of the Court of Petty Appeals. Plaintiffs claim that having another Court of Petty Appeals would infringe on this Court’s “exclusive jurisdiction as provided in its copyright documentation” and that it would “cramp its style because it likes being a monopoly.” While I appreciate the long-standing exclusive power that this Court has,[4]plaintiffs have failed to provide any documentation that they do, in fact, actually have a defensible copyright claim that defendants can infringe upon.
Tbh we don’t really get copyright law but let’s have a go at this. Defendants argue that no copyright actually exists and further argue that this Court cannot act in such an anti-competitive way as to rule against defendants, allowing this monopolization of the market to continue. Plaintiffs rebut this claim, arguing this “isn’t about antitrust law” and, even if it is, they “deserve an exemption because this Court has been around since your grandparents were learning to walk.”[5]
The Court is in a tricky position here. On the one hand, allowing a competitor to enter the market could be the beginning of our destruction, a return to the bad old days of the early teens when the Law Weeklyran super-annoying frat articles about what people wore. See, e.g.,Any Law Weekly Issue From 2014.[6]On the other hand, the majority here is all composed of 3Ls. We’re gettin’ preeeeetty close to graduation here and can’t really be bothered to care about, like, our posterity. Or whatever. See Class of 2016 v. Mahoney, 712 U.Va. 110 (2016) (handoff of student orgs moved up to February from April because 3Ls are useless).[7]Plus, as Sporky from Toy Story 4would say, the plaintiffs’ arguments are straight up “trash.” And, while trash arguments may fly in a real courtroom, we like to mix things up a bit.
After some thought,[8]us burnt out 3Ls have come to this: While we care deeply about the health and prosperity of this Court, yada yada yada, we also can’t be expected to care that much anymore. We’re just trying to get to graduation. That being the case, we flipped a coin and hereby decide to allow defendants to pursue their own version of the Court of Petty Appeals. However, should this Court ever feel threatened that their CoPAs are better than ours, we reserve the right to send ANG to egg their houses and thumbs down them for beating us at our own game.
Negligent Gullibility
The second claim plaintiffs allege, and really the more important one in the Court’s eyes, is negligent gullibility by defendants for believing this Court actually has a meritorious system for deciding cases. The elements of negligent gullibility are well-established by our case law: (1) negligence and (2) gullibility. See Class of 2019 v. Their PAs, 878 U.Va. 1 (2019) (“Lol you guys seriously bought that whole ‘no one remembers your cold-call screwup’ bullshit?”)
It’s clear here there was some serious gullibility. We think we’re pretty obviously not doing anything real with these opinions. Most of our decisions are outcome-based, jurisprudentially aggressive, and devoid of any reference to precedent. If you’re thinking to yourself, “So are the Ninth Circuit’s,”[9]lol @ you for thinking they’re a real court.
Defendants offer no defense for this claim, and the Court cannot think of any justifiable defense for believing that members of this Court actually know what we’re doing.[10]Seriously, did you see last week’s opinion ruling in favor of people who fill up their huge water bottles between classes? Like what the hell is that about? That Bill Re guy, smh.
In line with our well-established precedent, namely that 1Ls always lose,[11]we rule in favor of plaintiffs on this claim.
Because plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claim is denied, so is their request for an injunction. But plaintiff’s negligent gullibility claim is granted: Defendants are ordered to buy any UVA summer associate at their firm this year a beer to make up for having been so foolish.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___
mes5hf@virginia.edu
[1]Their name, not ours; like we’d want anything to do with Law Review gross.
[2]Lol, wut.
[3]Complex process, lots of vodka, some coin-flipping. We won’t bore you.
[4]It’s good to be queen.
[5]The Court would like to clarify that we have only been around since approximately 2015 as far as we know.
[6]But actually please don’t, they’re horrible.
[7]For those concerned about the Court violating the Judicial Code of Ethics by choosing to rule on a case in which it has a personal interest, the Court points you to Petty Rule of Civil Procedure 1: We do what we want.
[8]And a few glasses of wine.
[9]That one’s for you, Professor/Vice President/Overlord Jeffries.
[10]Except maybe that they’re 1Ls who are sweet and credulous and excited to use big new legal words like “constitution”?
[11]See1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va 22 (2019) (stating this well-established precedent).