Two of the Final Three 1L Assassins (the Girlies)
v.
Justice Eternal, Court of Assassins, League of Shadows, Ra's Al Ghul, Assassin
3 76 U.Va 8 (2023)
Demitry, J. delivers the opinion of the court.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
We hear this case on appeal after the bloody events of October 23, 2023, in the final round of 1L Assassins. At issue are the results of Assassins (which have still not been made clear to this Court). Plaintiff-appellants (“the Girlies”) appeal the decision of summary judgment for defendant, wherein defendant was declared the 1L victor[1] of Assassins ’23 (“Assassin 3”). Plaintiff-appellants contend on appeal that the Court’s declaration of victory for the defendant was based on insufficient evidence. Furthermore, plaintiff-appellants also object to the failure of the defendants to release relevant video evidence of the final moments of Assassins ’23, which would have been properly requested by plaintiffs during the process of discovery had the plaintiff(s) not been Just a Girl.[2] Appellants now ask us to vacate judgment for defendants and remand for further proceedings, including sufficient discovery of any and all electronic recordings and videotapes taken by friends of Assassin 3, as the defendants surely possess evidence of what transpired that fateful afternoon. Appellants argue that the video footage is discoverable and relevant to the case before us.
Immediately following the events from which this suit arose (known colloquially as “the 1L final showdown”), defendants moved for summary judgment, asking the Court of Assassins to declare defendant the winner of 1L Assassins. Plaintiffs in their response to defendant’s motion argued that no reasonable jury could find in favor of defendants, given that no discovery had yet been permitted and there was therefore no evidence upon which this case could be decided. Plaintiffs simultaneously moved to compel discovery of the video footage of the contested events. The Court of Assassins denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, declaring them the 1L winner. We believe that the Court of Assassins erred in so quickly granting summary judgment to defendant, and we therefore vacate this decision.
Appellants contend in their appeal that the video evidence, currently in possession of defendants, is relevant and discoverable. In their appeal, Appellants contend the following:
This video footage will show that a) Defendant Assassin 3 struck innocent bystander Thomas Ross, with a balled up sock that was intended for his true target(s), and b) one of the Plaintiffs stabbed Assassin 3 with a spoon at the precise moment that he fuckin [sic] YEETED a GIANT BALLED UP PAIR OF SOCKS AT HER LEFT EYEBALL AT POINT BLANK RANGE AS HARD AS HE COULD. YES, IN THE FACE.
Appellants have included signed witness affidavits in their appeal, including one by Ashanti Jones ’26, stating that she clearly saw the Defendant strike Mr. Ross ’26 with the socks as he tried to body-block his colleague from the furious barrage of said socks. If this were true, this would necessarily disqualify Assassin 3 from winning at Assassins, as his alleged assault on Mr. Ross predated his merciless sock execution of Plaintiff’s left eye.
The court’s decision to grant summary judgment for defendant was made before any discovery could be conducted by either parties. We therefore vacate the decision of the Court of Assassins and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. BACKGROUND AND ISSUES PRESENTED
In the opening documents sent to the Virginia Law student body, the Justice Eternal noted that: “Gunner-esque disputes may result in both parties being ‘killed.’” However, as all parties involved in Assassins have been killed (to some extent), the Court does not find that this rule applies. Furthermore, the Court of Petty Appeals rejects the sweeping language of “Gunner-esque disputes” and wishes to remind the Justice Eternal that Petty Disputes hold prima facie precedence over Gunner-esque disputes, as to be Gunner-esque is to be petty by definition.[3]
Some might argue that this Court’s findings are necessarily tainted by the fact that this Esteemed Member of the Court is also one of the alleged “losers” of assassins and should subsequently recuse myselfherself from the proceedings. The Court does not find that argument salient, because the Court said so.[4]
II. ANALYSIS
The Court feels the need to recognize the underlying public policy concerns of this case in answering the issue presented as well as the need to contend with the facts of law. It is true that one of the Girlies, Caroline Stice ’26, had a fractured neck and was in a literal neck brace at the time of her assassination.[5] Does the spirit of collegiality have a place in a game like Assassins?[6] Should we be throwing socks at such velocity at individuals with broken necks? Should there be an increase in legislation surrounding the firing of socks in such high numbers, such as restrictions on what basically constitute sock bump stocks? Should I not be alluding to the very real issue of gun control in America in my stupid treatise on assassins? Maybe. I don’t know. I’m tired. This is not rhetoric. Someone edit me.
The Court urges caution, however, on finding for a different victor in Assassins. Even if examination of evidence in a new trial yields a new result, the Court notes that both Plaintiffs have failed to state an ultimate claim upon which relief can be granted, nor do they seem particularly invested in doing so in the future. The winner of the 1L Assassins’ game must go on to do battle against the 2Ls and 3Ls, and the Court urges the Plaintiffs to consider who best would represent their class in an Assassins’ Battle Royale showdown—is it the person who brought, like, 20 pairs of socks to school with them to throw at two girlies as they were bottle-necked in their Crim class, with no escape, one of whom had a broken neck? Or, do we want to throw our allegiance behind the other two of the final three—one of whom has the aforementioned fractured neck, and the other of whom is writing to complain about the results of Assassins, hopefully embodying Big Karen Energy, and who also became Very Anxious[7] upon learning she was in the final three of assassins and took that fact as tacit proof that now everyone knows she’s violently antisocial.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court vacates the default judgment of the lower court and remands for further proceedings. The Court also respectfully requests that Justice Eternal officially declare a winner, and that said winner be Sami, so the 1Ls do actually have a chance at winning something, instead of losing, the way 1Ls always do. SeeLiberals Who Are Bad At Using Canva v. The Federalist Society at UVA Law 76 U.Va 4 (2023) (citing 2Ls v. 1Ls, 74 U.Va 2 (2021) (Tonseth, C.J., dissenting) (“[T]he implication that 1Ls always lose continues to be the bedrock of this esteemed Court.”)). So ordered.
Sandu, J., concurring in the judgment.
I do not know what business the Court of Petty Appeals has in hearing cases from the Court of Assassins, as parties have failed to first exhaust available remedies through the Assassins court system, including the Court of Assassins Appeals. This jurisdictional issue goes to the fundamental nature of our Court and cannot be waived by the parties. It would be an unconstitutional infringement upon the authority of a parallel court system to permit this suit to continue. Nevertheless, ignoring jurisdictional concerns in order to ensure that 1Ls lose, and even bringing suit about a game that only 1Ls care about in the first place are such petty actions that I cannot help but view that in this scenario, the Court’s jurisdiction is proper, if only on an ad hoc basis.
We must find for movants consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), which states in part that: “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to anymaterial fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (emphasis added). Because this is a situation in which there is a genuine dispute as to material fact, summary judgment was improper. Therefore, while this Court should never have heard the case in the first place, the resulting outcome is proper based on the facts of the case.
---
ncd8kt@virginia.edu
ms7mn@virginia.edu
[1] I actually have no real idea who won, technically. Did I stab Sami at the same time a sock was thrown at my face with such zeal that I finally have a valid reason to treat myself to Botox/reparative plastic surgery? Or did he get me first? All I did was email Justice Eternal that I was probably dead, but that it was chaos. War is hell.
[2] Evidenced by the fact that I am literally just a girl.
[3] Basically the “all tequilas are mezcal, but not all mezcals are tequila” rule.
[4] Plus, I’m writing this when I truly should be working on my major memo draft, and instead I’m balls deep in reviewing my civ pro notes because I’m an idiot, so who’s the real loser, huh!? Me, still.
[5] See Exhibit 1, condition of Plaintiff.
[6] See Exhibit 2, correspondence between Marissa Varnado and Plaintiff Nicky Demitry about Plaintiff Caroline Stice.
[7] See Exhibit 3, correspondence indicating Plaintiff’s maladjusted childhood anxiety dreams.