Tonseth v. The Haters II
74 U.Va 24 (2022)
TONSETH, C.J. EMERITUS delivers the opinion of the COURT.
I.
Today’s case comes before this Court via an action in assumpsit, wherein Plaintiff, yours truly, alleges that the defendants, his haters, violated his covenant of quiet enjoyment to coast through law school with his peace undisturbed. Inspired by Will Smith and King Lil G, Plaintiff humbly requests a permanent injunction against the defendants’ use of his name in casual conversation, citing King Lil G’s lyrics in his amicus: “Keep my name out of your mouth, cause most of the time you don't know what you talking about.” This Court is inclined to agree with today’s plaintiff. Defendants vehemently disagree, so into the Thunderdome[1] we go.
II.
“Everybody talks, everybody talks. It started with a whisper.”[2] Plaintiff understands that UVA Law is a small school. Further, Plaintiff acknowledges that unless one were to be an extreme introvert, or to attend every event on Zoom, people will come to know most students within their graduating class and the entire school more generally. However, the plaintiff has taken umbrage and filed a direct complaint to this Court to halt a potential miscarriage of justice: the defendants indiscriminately bringing Plaintiff up in unrelated conversations, meddling in business that isn’t their own, and thus making a mountain out of a molehill across various social circles. In their response, Defendants urge that as a “public figure,” Plaintiff has no claim to quash the defendants’ First Amendment rights to speak, especially with SCOTUS’s incredibly malleable “malice” requirements. This Court finds the defendants’ counter persuasive, and thus dismisses any potential slander claims out of hand.
In response, Plaintiff argued in the alternative that Defendants have violated the agreed-to covenant of quiet enjoyment between the two parties. Defendants urged this Court to see past this smokescreen, arguing there was no consideration between the parties, and no “real property” was impacted by their continued pedantic gossip. Plaintiff, in true and high-quality legal ingenuity, posited that by both parties entering into mutual friendships, no matter how superficial, even if just by being classmates, a social contract was created. As this Court is founded on the work of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, we do thus find there was a contract between the parties. In regard to the actual real property affected, the plaintiff points to social status, reputation, and time spent putting out fires unnecessarily created by the blabbermouths. In such an insular and cliquey school, the Court deems this argument as full of merit, and thus sustains the claim.
Plaintiff then turned to the quiet enjoyment of his tenure at UVA Law. Defendants, it is alleged, violated the covenant as hostile claimants, a byproduct of their mutually formed social contract, by not allowing Plaintiff to enjoy his time as a student undisturbed with full enjoyment of his real property. Thus, Plaintiff brought the action in assumpsit to remedy this, as Defendants have neglected to uphold their collegiality end of the promised social contract.
III.
There is nary a need for an in-depth analysis of these claims. Plaintiff has proven their prima facie case that their quiet enjoyment has been disturbed[3] and that it has been done so by the named defendants. This case is one where the plaintiff has been irreparably harmed and thus demands an instant remedy. But going further, this Court would like to invoke Justice Thomas’s sage counsel one final time, in hopes that the defendants are listening: “Good manners will open doors that the best education cannot."
IV.
You may be asking yourself, “Doesn’t this case reek of bias and pettiness?” Absolutely, but this Court cites deep precedent to weather this criticism. First and most importantly, as I shall remind the learned audience, the First Petty Rule of Civil Procedure is, “We do what we want.”[4] This rule as a standalone is justification for this legal and my personal opinion. However, lest we forget, nary a fortnight ago, this Court, via complaints brought by some of the defendants in this case, sought to sue me, as the Chief Justice, myself.[5] As I wrote in my dissent and will repeat now, if you come at the King, you best not miss. Look who has the last laugh now!
And with that, the Thunderdome[6] officially closes its doors. A permanent and timeless injunction is thus granted against the defendants, and damages are awarded to the plaintiff equal to the current Powerball figure. Mamba out.
KULKARNI, J., dissenting.
This is a law school. It is that simple. So why then, is the most esteemed court in all the land being tarnished by this farce of a majority opinion? To have himself as the plaintiff and to be the Justice deciding the case seems clearly inspired by Justice Thomas in all the worst ways. Plaintiff Tonseth (for that is the way to describe him today) has many failures in his opinion, the most glaring of which is his lack of understanding of the University of Virginia Drama School of Law. His mere existence causes stories to start. To allege that he is the only one being harmed is outrageous. If I didn't believe in the integrity of this Court, I would file a countersuit. The haters are correct, and this opinion will describe why.
Plaintiff relies on a theory of social contract between himself and the very people he is suing and alleges breach thereof. The reality is that there is no contract amongst friends at the Law School. Here, friendships are made and lost on a dime and weekly. To claim that such a transparent and superficial relationship is anything akin to a contract is true fantasy. Similarly, to allege that “putting out fires” related to issues off-shooting from the very drama Plaintiff causes is to allege no real property interest. That is energy that every law student is required to put in when attending law school in such an environment.
On the question of remedies, Plaintiff Tonseth is once again “shooting from the hip.” Much like Professor Thomas Frampton’s attempted punch at Dick Cheney, this shot misses its mark. The Court of Petty Appeals has no authority to issue a binding permanent injunction against Plaintiff Tonseth’s haters. Put simply, he has to accept that “haters gonna hate.” On a personal note, I can guarantee you that I will not be pursuing such action against my many haters in the future. While Plaintiff Tonseth is fond of the phrase, “If you come at the King, you best not miss,” I choose instead (and recommend he choose to follow as well), “They hate us ‘cause they ain’t us.”
BIRCH, J., begrudgingly concurring in part and dissenting in part.
As a matter of deference and friendship that flies in the face of the dissent’s view of this Law School, I must concur with Justice and Plaintiff Tonseth. Three years alongside the Justice has, at times, contained the mundane activities of being a graduate student. More often, however, it has been a roller coaster ride in a theme park that managed to open the gates before the state inspector had a chance to look anything over. That is to say: fun, but who knows what the hell could happen next.
Much of the claimed harm is alleged from the actions of others, and I agree there have been some truly unprecedented and unwarranted breaches of quiet enjoyment of the Justice’s Law School experience.[7] For this, a remedy should be granted and is offered at the end of this mixed opinion. To claim that this opinion in any way tarnishes this most esteemed Court would be to assume there was precious metal at the heart of this bench to tarnish. Instead, this Court is made of the most solid foundation the Law School has to offer: hand-cut marble heavy enough to crush hopes and dreams.
However, and in a turn none of us ever expected, I must agree in part with our junior colleague on the bench. Justice Kulkarni has taken the correct position that Justice Tonseth must simply accept the fact that “haters gonna hate.” It is called assumption of risk. Justice Tonseth unceremoniously stepped into this Law School’s social boxing ring and must now fight his way out. The final bell has rung, but it seems the Justice refuses to go out any way but swinging.
Damages should be awarded to the plaintiff, Justice Tonseth, totaling only the amount of already-received real and grossly over-perceived social status granted by lighting little fires throughout much of the Law School’s social scene. The injunction should be denied, and Justice Kulkarni should be held to his precedent regarding a similar opinion, expected next year.
---
pjt5hm@virginia.edu
sfb9yu@virginia.edu
omk6cg@virginia.edu
[1] https://www.lawweekly.org/front-page/2021/3/3/welcome-to-the-thunderdome-chief-justice-phil-tonseth-takes-the-gavel
[2] See Neon Trees’s popular 2011 hit.
[3] The sheer amount of rumors people spread is enough, like c’mon, folks.
[4] Law Weekly v. CoPA Copiers, 369 U.Va. 96 (2019).
[5] UVA Law Student Body v. Chief Justice Tonseth, 74 U.Va. 10 (2021).
[6] https://www.lawweekly.org/front-page/2021/3/3/welcome-to-the-thunderdome-chief-justice-phil-tonseth-takes-the-gavel
[7] Note that “quiet” enjoyment often meant yelling so the person next to you could hear you at Bar Review, Feb Club, or many of the other debauched escapes from work this amazing colony of ‘students’ manages to come up with