Court of Petty Appeals: Joseph E.X. Otic v. Mittens
72 U.Va. 24 (2020)
Justice Re delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us first to decide whether pet cats are legal persons capable of suing and being sued, and second, whether occupying the only suitable location for Zooming constitutes tortious interference with kitty-napping.
I.
Before the most recent full moon,[1] 2L Joseph Edward Xavier Otic reached his limit. Once (and only once) a week, Otic has a fixed obligation: sitting in front of his computer for a class on Zoom. Otic discovered that there is only one location in his apartment (a chair located near a window), where Zoom functions perfectly. Specifically, it is the only location with suitable lighting for those custom virtual backgrounds to work.
But there was one problem: Mittens. Mittens is Otic’s cat, and the Zoom chair is Mittens’ favorite nap spot. Initially, Otic tried moving Mittens. Mittens then commenced a series of behaviors calculated to drive Otic from the chair. No fewer than four times each class, Mittens jumped on Otic’s keyboard and purred. At least twice, this unmuted Otic’s Zoom. When a cat jumps on a keyboard while purring, it sounds pretty weird if you’re on the other end of a Zoom call. The noises embarrassed Otic and alarmed his classmates. Finally, Otic determined that he could no longer successfully Zoom from the chair. Otic moved to a different chair, but found when he tried amusing his professor and classmates with hilarious virtual backgrounds, the images pixelated.
Otic has been trapped in his apartment with Mittens for far too long, and despite being a UVA Law student,[2] he is rather litigious. Because he has had very limited contact with other humans, he decided to sue his cat. The lower court dismissed the case, finding that a cat is not a legal person and therefore incapable of being sued. Otic v. Mittens, 78 Ivy 3d 115 (Ivy Cir. 2020) (“What? No, obviously you can’t sue your cat. Come on, we were watching TV before you came in with this.”). We granted certiorari.
II.
We turn first to whether a cat is a legal person. We have allowed suits against animals when they have invaded the Law School. See, e.g., Frightened 1Ls v. That Snake by the Vending Machines, 324 U.Va. 45 (2019); Hungry 1Ls v. The Mice by the Free Food Table, 301 U.Va. 522 (2011). Because classes are now remote, a pet can be understood to interfere with legal education in a similar way to the snake and mice. Some scholars also argue that when people refer to themselves as a dog/cat mom/dad, they deserve to be open to suits from their pets.[3]
All of this lends support to the theory that pets are legal persons who can sue and be sued under our petty law. Also, cats can get coronavirus.[4] If people can get ’rona, and cats can get ’rona, then cats are people. That’s just science, and we support #Science.
III.
We now turn to the second question, whether Mittens’ conduct constitutes tortious interference. Counsel for Mittens, Ms. Baskin, argues from precedent, “Hey all you honorable cool cats and kittens, I would draw your attention to your holding in 2L Gunner v. Oblivious 3L.” Brief for Respondent at 15, Otic v. Mittens, 72 U.Va. 22 (2020) No. 20-104. It is true that we have dealt with competitions for chairs before. In 2L Gunner, 276 U.Va. 103 (2002), we uncharacteristically ruled in favor of the gunner, holding that despite the 3L’s extremely credible claim of having no clue what ordinarily goes on in the library, the gunner had a vested property interest in the study spot.
But this case is not on point. Mittens claims that Otic lacks a property interest in the chair, and yet Otic is making a tort claim. Our petty common law has long acknowledged that students have the right to see and hear in class. See, e.g., Student in Back Row v. Lomax, 1 U.Va. 279 (1827) (ordering that microphones be invented so students in the back could hear) and Enrollees of Evening Seminar v. Madison, 2 U.Va. 223 (1830) (ordering that electric lighting be invented so students in the two hour evening seminar, “Supreme Court from Jay to Marshall,” could see the professor). And, frustratingly, our cases support a rather unrestricted right to participate in class. See That One Gunner v. Literally Everyone Else in the Class, 32 U.Va. 411 (1843) (upholding the right to at least attempt to impress fellow classmates by asking complicated, irrelevant questions). Our more recent cases point to modified expectations during video meetings. In Lazy Rising-2L v. Career Services, 320 U.Va. 304 (2017), we ruled that students cannot be forced to wear pants in online interviews as long as the prospective employer doesn’t notice.
While these cases were against the school and not against private parties, like a cat, they nevertheless give the sense that students are entitled to observe class without interruption and express themselves in that class. Now that all classes are held remotely, we are forced to apply the petty common law to novel circumstances. Using virtual backgrounds is an essential part of expressing oneself and bringing joy to others, which are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty and are deeply rooted in this School’s history and tradition.
IV.
As a matter of law, cats are legal persons, and it is impermissible to interfere with another’s use of virtual backgrounds. If there were a dispute of material fact, it would be necessary to remand the case. But there is no such dispute. In a deposition with a pet psychic, Mittens stated, “Yea of course I know that’s the only place Zoom backgrounds work. I don’t give a sh*t. It’s my f***ing chair.” R. at 589. It is, therefore, unnecessary to remand this case for further proceedings.
* * *
We order an injunction against Mittens, barring him from attempting to occupy the Zoom chair during class and award damages for Otic in the form of three dead birds, to be procured and delivered by Mittens at Mittens’ earliest convenience. The judgment of the Court of Petty Appeals for the Ivy Circuit is vacated.
It is so ordered.
Calamaro, J., dissenting.
This ploy to acquire three dead birds has resulted in a major and inappropriately large windfall for the plaintiff. Unfortunately, the windfall is a direct result of this court’s obvious error in finding cats to be legal persons, a finding which will have reverberations throughout human, cat, and animal populations. Perhaps the court has been swayed by popular opinion, which is as settled as the changing tides and was most recently swayed by a spate of online documentaries that lend a sympathetic light towards the “struggle” of the members of the felidae family.[5] Either way, cats are not people. They are murderous, godless, apex predators that will never love you and hopes to eat your face one day when you die due to cat allergies.
Luk, C.J., dissenting.
My fellow Justices have each ended up half a mouse short of a complete answer. It is obviously the case that cats have standing to sue under our petty law and equally obvious that cats have superior claims to chairs than any human being, much less a law student. I am saddened by the precedent set today.
---
wdr3mq@virginia.edu
dac6jk@virginia.edu
cl3eh@virginia.edu
[1] The Court has completely lost track of the days of the week during quarantine, but about a week ago there was a full moon, and the occurrences which gave rise to this lawsuit therefore happened less than a full moon ago, which is within this Court's statute of limitations to review.
[2] UVA Law is a very collegial place. See, e.g., every email from Admissions. But actually, it is.
[3] See Andrew Vito, Pet Personhood: A Great Idea, or the Greatest Idea?, 48 Canine Coll. L. Rev. 1, 39 (2008) (“If you give your dog wrapped Christmas presents with her name on it, it is reasonable that she should expect to have standing to haul you before a tribunal if, for example, you deny her access to aquiferous sources of water by repeatedly closing the toilet seat.”).
[4] Cats can catch coronavirus, study finds, prompting WHO probe, Al Jazeera (Apr. 9, 2020), https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/cats-catch-coronavirus-study-finds-prompting-probe-200409041642628.html.
[5] See generally Tiger King, (the ill-advised movie) Cats, and Don’t F**k With Cats.
[1] The Court has completely lost track of the days of the week during quarantine, but about a week ago there was a full moon, and the occurrences which gave rise to this lawsuit therefore happened less than a full moon ago, which is within this Court's statute of limitations to review.
[2] UVA Law is a very collegial place. See, e.g., every email from Admissions. But actually, it is.
[3] See Andrew Vito, Pet Personhood: A Great Idea, or the Greatest Idea?, 48 Canine Coll. L. Rev. 1, 39 (2008) (“If you give your dog wrapped Christmas presents with her name on it, it is reasonable that she should expect to have standing to haul you before a tribunal if, for example, you deny her access to aquiferous sources of water by repeatedly closing the toilet seat.”).
[4] Cats can catch coronavirus, study finds, prompting WHO probe, Al Jazeera (Apr. 9, 2020), https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/cats-catch-coronavirus-study-finds-prompting-probe-200409041642628.html.
[5] See generally Tiger King, (the ill-advised movie) Cats, and Don’t F**k With Cats.