Court of Petty Appeals: Mouse v. MICE


Mouse
v.
MICE

77 U.Va 15 (2025)


Allard, C.J., delivers the opinion of the Court, in which Coleman, Coco, and Jones, J.J., join.

Demitry, J., concurring.

Allen, J., concurring.

Allard, C.J., delivering the opinion of the Court.

This case is a challenge to the Law School’s order to deport all rodents from Law School grounds. Petitioner, known only to the Court as Mouse, initiated this suit[1] after the Law School began its deportation effort. The Court assigned to Mouse the brilliant petty attorney, Nicky Demitry, whose rodent expertise allowed her to communicate between Mouse and the Court.

Mouse asks that the Court invalidate the Administration’s order deporting all mice from the Law School. Today, we rule only on their motion to dismiss the suit. After reviewing their briefs and hearing arguments from both parties, we conclude that Defendant’s motion must be DENIED.

The facts of the case thus far were ascertained via FOIA requests to UVA Law and from the justices’ eyewitness accounts. In early December, students began to notice mice scurrying around the halls of the Law School. The response to the roving rodents, no doubt seeking refuge from the wintry whirlwinds, was hardly positive. The Federalist Society denounced the presence of the mice and began hosting anti-mouse rallies at which they taught rodent removal and handed out mousetraps.

“They’re eating the Kats!” said one rally attendee, referring to reports that the mice were eating Kit Kats from the Student Affairs office.[2] Meanwhile, the American Constitution Society, seeing how popular the FedSoc events were, began hosting their own similar events at which they handed out “non-lethal” rodent traps.[3] These events were ill-attended. The Virginia Animal Law Society attempted in vain to designate Sanctuary Classrooms throughout Walter Brown Hall, but they could not contain the swell of discontent.

The Administration, concerned about the students’ vigilante pest control, moved to institutionalize and consolidate the student projects. The Mouse Infiltration Counter-Engagement, or MICE was established under Student Affairs to oversee all rodent removal. As MICE’s rodent prisons reached overcapacity, MICE began investigating possible locations to which the mice could be removed. MICE concluded that the Darden Business School, known for its large snake population, was the ideal location. Accordingly, on January 25, MICE issued an order to deport all mice to Darden’s aptly named Guantanamo Hall (“the order”).

The next day, Mouse visited the Law Weekly office. In a Ratatouille-esque display of rodent intelligence, Mouse appeared holding a paper copy of the order in its mouth. Mouse placed the paper on the ground and began trodding on it in circles while bitterly squeaking. The instant suit followed. MICE retained Jones Day to defend the order.  

I

MICE first argues that the case should be dismissed under PRCP 3, requiring the funniest outcome to prevail. They contend that this case’s underlying bit—comparing the plight of immigrants to that of unwanted mice—is abhorrent, and thus not funny. “Immigrants,” they write, “must always be compared to rats.”

We are um. Not going to touch this one. Suffice it to say, this is wrong.

II

MICE’s next argument for dismissal relies on a line of cases dealing with the Court’s personal jurisdiction over parties that cannot comprehend the Court’s proceedings. Most recently, in In re the Ghastly Specter of Columbus, we held that a non-corporeal being could not be haled into Court without a paranormal interpreter to explain the proceedings to him. See 77 U.Va 8 (2024). Similarly, in Students for Early Spring v. Punxsutawney Phil, we held that the Court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant who spoke only Groundhogese, if the proceedings could be made “comprehensible” to him. 75 U.Va 19 (2023).

MICE reads Ghastly Specter and Punxsutawney to require a “qualified interpreter” for Mouse, otherwise the case must be dismissed. MICE notes that Attorney Demitry’s qualifications have not been certified by the Court.

Mouse counters that Mouse falls under the Court’s personal jurisdiction for two reasons. First, the Court of Petty Appeals exercises jurisdiction over “all petty disputes related to the Law School.” Students for Attending Cool Events v. UVA Law Faculty, 76 U.Va 13 (2024). Mouse argues that the Court’s jurisdiction thus logically entails personal jurisdiction over all creatures within Law School buildings. Mouse notes that in both Ghastly Specter and Punxsutawney, the defendants were off of Law School premises.

Second, Mouse argues that Ghastly Specter is distinguishable because Columbus appeared specially to contest personal jurisdiction. Here, by contrast, Mouse has consented to personal jurisdiction by bringing the instant suit. MICE counters that Demitry and other Law Weekly staff simply interpreted Mouse’s flustered behavior as an attempt to file a complaint. In effect, they accuse the Law Weekly of using Mouse as a puppet.

Accepting that this may be more or less true, Mouse counters that the trodding and squeaking in the Law Weekly office which initiated the suit may have been sufficiently irritating to grant the Court personal jurisdiction. Mouse’s behavior was analogous to that of the swarm of bees over which the Court concluded it had jurisdiction. See Ghastly Specter, 77 U.Va 8 (2024) (citing Law Weekly v. The Swarm of Murderous Bees, 77 U.Va 2 (2024)) (“[T]he bees did not appear specially. Instead, they flew directly into Plaintiffs’ faces and their solo cups. There was nothing ‘special’ about this. Accordingly, they had already waived objections to our exercise of personal jurisdiction.”).

We are persuaded by Mouse that this case is most analogous to Swarm of Murderous Bees. If you are not persuaded, that’s OK. Just re-read this section. 

III

MICE’s final argument is that dismissal is required under FRCP 12(b)(4) (“male living space venue”). MICE contends that the rodent infestation at the Law School has made the entire building into a male living space, including and especially the men’s restroom near the Law Weekly office, where all Court of Petty Appeals cases are heard.

We have not interpreted rule 12(b)(4) since the revised FRCP were written in 2024. Accordingly, what constitutes a “male living space venue” is a question of first impression. Rather than attempt to define that term here—a highly controversial exercise that would likely result in hurt feelings and even perhaps some cuts and bruises—we shall simply moot the issue by temporarily relocating the Court to the pool at North Grounds Rec Center.

“B-b-b-but don’t you have to refile the case in the new venue?” No. PRCP 1. (“We do what we want.”).

All of MICE’s arguments for dismissal are unavailing. Accordingly, their motion to dismiss is DENIED. A hearing on Mouse’s pending motion for a TRO shall be held on March 1.

So ordered.


Demitry, J., concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion in full, but I write separately to emphasize an additional point that the majority, in its wisdom (or, more likely, in its haste to hit the pool before it fills with 1Ls pretending to work out), failed to address: the ramifications of this case for the rule of law, the balance of power between humans and rodents, and, most importantly, the emerging field of rodent civil procedure.

The Court rightly holds that personal jurisdiction exists over Mouse. But in doing so, the majority overlooks a critical doctrinal clarification: Mouse’s appearance in the Law Weekly office was not just “irritating” (although, as someone whose legal briefs have been gnawed into confetti, I can attest to the irritation). Rather, Mouse’s conduct constituted a clear and unequivocal invocation of the ancient principle of squeak decisis—the doctrine that when a litigant loudly and persistently expresses itself in the presence of legal authorities, the Court is obligated to take notice. Mouse’s frenetic, paper-trotting display was at least as coherent as those litigants, and thus we must reaffirm our commitment to squeak decisis here.

Further, I must address the attacks on Attorney Demitry’s qualifications. MICE would have you believe that her expertise in rodent linguistics is insufficient, but let us recall that she has a long and distinguished history in vermin-related litigation, including her landmark victory in In re The Law Library Cockroach, where she successfully argued against the insect’s wrongful removal from the library basement. If anyone is qualified to serve as Mouse’s advocate, it is Attorney Demitry, who has, on more than one occasion, provided pro bono representation to the creatures who skitter among us.

Beyond personal jurisdiction, there is a more pressing concern: the potential due process violations inherent in rodent deportation. The majority opinion focuses, understandably, on the procedural questions of venue and jurisdiction. But what about Mouse’s substantive rights? Is a rodent not entitled to procedural fairness, a reasonable period of notice before eviction, and—dare I say—humane conditions while in state custody? MICE, in its infinite benevolence, has opted to deport these creatures to Guantanamo Hall. This raises serious Eighth Amendment concerns, for, as anyone who has encountered Darden’s snake problem will attest, deportation there is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment. The doctrine of non-refoulement (which, to be fair, applies to asylum-seekers and not to small creatures who steal from Student Affairs) nonetheless suggests that we ought not send living beings to certain doom.

If the Law School is committed to upholding its moral and legal responsibilities, it must at least provide for rodent relocation alternatives. I note that North Grounds Rec Center has a noticeably underused sauna, which, while not ideal, would offer Mouse and its brethren a warm and snake-free existence. I further observe that the JAG School, which already tolerates an insufferable number of lawyers, would be unlikely to protest the addition of a few mice.

Finally, I turn to MICE’s argument under Rule 12(b)(4) (“male living space venue”). The Court sidesteps this question by relocating proceedings to the pool. But I must dissent from this reasoning: the issue is not venue, but whether mice, by their very nature, render a space into a male living space. This question is dispositive, as a finding in the affirmative would create an insurmountable standing problem for all female plaintiffs who seek to bring cases in spaces infested by rodents. As an originalist in matters of filth and chaos, I find this argument dubious. The presence of vermin alone does not a male living space make. Just look at Washington, DC right now.[4]  Accordingly, I reject MICE’s attempt to expand the scope of Rule 12(b)(4), lest we risk its dangerous application to future cases (e.g., Students for Hygiene v. The Law Weekly Office, forthcoming).

In conclusion, while I agree with the Court’s holding, I caution that this case is far from over. If we are not vigilant, we risk establishing a dangerous precedent: one in which small creatures with legitimate claims are ignored, venue is manipulated to dodge difficult questions, and deportations occur without proper procedural safeguards.[5] For these reasons, I concur.


Allen, J., concurring

I agree with the majority in opinion and disposition, writing separately to push my functionalist agenda. I would emphasize that Ghastly Specter and Punxsutawney were cases concerned with the fundamental fairness and validity of haling an unwitting defendant into court. None of these considerations operate to bar or otherwise limit the ability of a plaintiff to avail themselves of this court’s protection. Thus, they are not simply distinguishable but inapposite to the facts at hand.


---


[1] Or so we assume. He just showed up in our office and started squeaking.

[2] The Court could not verify that Student Affairs ever even had Kit Kats.

[3] The Court could not verify that ACS’s traps were in fact non-lethal.

[4] Albeit an argument can be made that recent administrative policies are trending in a certain direction…

[5] So essentially a carbon copy of our current system.

Previous
Previous

Docket Duel Update!!!

Next
Next

Court of Petty Appeals: In re Law Weekly Cybersecurity Disaster