Readers of the Virginia Law Weekly
v.
Virginia Law Weekly
75 U.Va 4 (2022)
Walsh, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.
Background
The case before us today comes by way of a somewhat unique set of circumstances. Plaintiffs in this matter—the numerous readers of the greatly renowned and widely beloved Virginia Law Weekly—did not originally intend on bringing forth this lawsuit. However, they stated in their original complaint that they felt compelled to do so by an article appearing in last week’s issue of the Law Weekly. Specifically, they cited “Yet Another Sunset Series Review,” in which the article’s author declared, “I can be lazy and redo old articles.”[1]The article then asked, “What are you going to do, sue me?”[2] Plaintiffs answered in the affirmative,[3]immediately filing a complaint alleging breach of contract in the District Court of Petty Complaints, with the writer of the article and the Law Weekly named as the individual defendant and the institutional defendant, respectively. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that nothing in the Law Weekly’s history of “journalism” even hinted at the creation of an expectation that the newspaper would provide its readers with new, entertaining, or informative articles. The court reasoned that because no such expectation had been created (and thus no implicit promise made), there was no contract that would have been breached by Defendants’ behavior. The Circuit Court of Petty Problems agreed and upheld the dismissal, and Plaintiffs appealed the decision to this Court. We disagree with the lower courts and instead find in favor of the plaintiffs.
Analysis
Plaintiffs argue that by “redo[ing] old articles,” the defendants breached a contract—implicitly created by the Law Weekly’s publications over its many years of existence—to provide its readers with novel, original journalism. They further argue that in return for this journalism, readers of the newspaper provide the Law Weekly and its writers with the attention and recognition that all law students inherently crave. As a remedy for this breach of contract, Plaintiffs seek punitive damages, contending that what they have lost is not just the ability to read articles based on original ideas, but also their faith in the journalistic process and free press itself.
In addressing these assertions, the Court would first like to remind Plaintiffs that contract remedies are not punitive.[4] Additionally, although the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ provision of attention and recognition confers a great benefit upon the Law Weekly and its staff, we also find that such performance by the readers was not used to induce the newspaper to provide its readers with the novel, original journalism that Plaintiffs claim was promised to them. This fact is indicated by the paper’s historic lack of novel, original journalism. Because performance by the readers was not used to induce performance by the Law Weekly, it is clear that there was no bargaining between the parties, no consideration, and ultimately, no contract.
While this conclusion would ordinarily demand that this Court uphold the lower courts’ dismissals of Plaintiffs’ claim, observers of this Court should know by now that that’s not how this shit works. As stated in the First Petty Rule of Civil Procedure, here in the Court of Petty Appeals, “[w]e do what we want.”[5] Rather than dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint for such a trivial problem as not stating an actual claim, the Court instead finds for Plaintiffs on the basis of a new rule—one which applies to all issues of pettiness, regardless of their merit: Be careful what you wish for.
As it applies to the present case, this new rule simply means that if you’re going to taunt readers of a newspaper into suing you for something that you freely admit to doing in said newspaper, don’t be surprised when there are consequences.[6] For years, the Law Weekly has repeated article ideas, and it has even reprinted full articles and opinions when it has run out of content. Did you see any complaints filed in any of the petty courts when the paper did this? No, of course you didn’t, because no one cared. It’s like committing white collar crime: Plenty of people do it and get away with it, so long as they just don’t brag about it.[7] But nooooo, a Law Weekly writer just had to run her mouth and essentially challenge her readers into bringing this case. In doing so, that defendant created more work for this Court to perform, and that is completely unforgivable. It would go against the very notion of justice for the individual defendant to escape from this case unscathed and without having to answer for her actions.
Conclusion
Contract remedies may not be punitive, but this Court sure is. While the Court concludes that the Virginia Law Weekly is entirely blameless in this matter, the author of the instigating article is not, and she must face consequences. As punishment for flaunting the rules of basic authorial integrity and decency, and for creating more work for the Court—work which required the Court to think about Contracts, a subject that the author of this opinion hadn’t even touched since 1L—the individual defendant is hereby permanently enjoined from writing articles between the hours of 12 a.m. and 7 a.m.[8] and from name-dropping more than two friends per article (including footnotes).[9]
It is so ordered.
Peterson, J., concurring.
I write separately today, as Justice Thomas has done so many times, to underscore one particular point. Fear not: I’m not talking about the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Instead, I write to emphasize that attempts to impose liability rules relating to the quality of the Law Weekly’s work must be smote by the heavy and just hand of this Court. Parties claiming the paper must deliver “novel, original journalism” have no place here. Imposing such rules on the beleaguered, understaffed, and simply unfunny journalists who make up the Law Weekly would threaten crushing liability. Like The Lord of the Rings’ Gollum, and like Copeley Field’s ANG, the Law Weekly has a role to play—a raison d'être.
In sum—I write to chastise Plaintiffs for presenting their argument in the manner they did. It is unbecoming of this Court to consider arguments which purport to impose standards upon the Court. We, the justices, make the rules. And, while Sai deserves all of the sanctions aimed at her today, I refuse to entertain any claim that there is a principled way of making these decisions outside of pure, unfettered, judicial discretion.
Accordingly, I concur.
---
saw8rc@virginia.edu
jtp4bw@virginia.edu
[1] Sai Kulkarni, Yet Another Sunset Series Review, Va. L. Wkly., Sept. 14, 2022, at 5.
[2] Id.
[3] Specifically, they answered, “Bet.”
[4] See U.S. Naval Inst. v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., 875 F.2d 1044 (2d Cir. 1989). But wouldn’t it be fun if they were?
[5] Law Weekly v. CoPA Copiers, 369 U.Va. 96 (2019).
[6] For another application of this rule, see Thomas J. Prohaska, Stabbing victim’s last words to killer: “Stab Me,” Buffalo News (Jan. 11, 2014), https://buffalonews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/stabbing-victim-s-last-words-to-killer-stab-me/article_1ef97eb3-3a2a-57c9-bb4b-9352c5814810.html.
[7] Don’t quote me on that.
[8] See Kulkarni, supra note 1, n.5.
[9] See, e.g., Sai Kulkarni, Staying Well Fed in CVille: Late Night Haunts, Va. L. Wkly., Apr. 6, 2022, at 6; Sai Kulkarni, Managing Mental Health in Spring Semester, Va. L. Wkly., Mar. 16, 2022, at 3; Sai Kulkarni, Florida Man Does Ski Trip, Va. L. Wkly., Jan. 26, 2022, at 1. You get the gist.