Court of Petty Appeals: Acetaminophen Users of America v. Public Interest Law Association
Acetaminophen Users of America
v.
Public Interest Law Association
77 U.Va 10 (2024)
Demitry, C. J., delivers the opinion of the Court.
Factual Background
The nation suffers from chronic migraines, and now the cure is accused of being the disease.
This case concerns acetaminophen—or, as Defendant Donald J. Trump repeatedly insisted at his September 22 press conference, “a-seat-a-minnow-fon.” The Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (collectively, “the Facebook Uncles”), are accused of declaring, among other things, that “Tylenol causes autism” and, in a bold application of causation principles not seen since Palsgraf, that “autism causes Tylenol.” Additional statements at issue: “Tylenol gave us the band DEVO,” and “Big Tylenol doesn’t want you to know about alphabet-a-minimum.”
Plaintiffs argue these assertions caused widespread confusion, headaches, and, in at least one case, the consumption of Flintstones vitamins as a primary care strategy.
Plaintiffs, America’s liver-owners and caretakers of children, bring this action to preserve what remains of our collective sanity. We contend with the following questions in relation to Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Whether a nationwide class action may be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 where the putative class definition is “everyone with a liver and/or child,” or whether such a class is overly broad, even by the standards of multidistrict litigation.
Whether the Court of Petty Appeals has the jurisdiction to hear this case.
I. Discussion
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). Historically, we have broadly interpreted our jurisdiction, spanning from pandemic health protocols, 2L v. COVID Protocols, 74 U.Va 16 (2022), to fashion trends, In re Pleats, 303 U.Va 295 (2019), and even on several occasions to God, 1Ls v. God, 73 U.Va 16 (2021); Students of UVA Law v. God, 76 U.Va 9 (2023). Any discernible limitation on this Court’s jurisdiction is surely defeated by the (in)famous first rule of petty procedure. See PRCP 1 (“We do what we want.”).
Defendants have argued that their statements were too garbled to create minimum contacts. But International Shoe does not require accurate pronunciation, only purposeful availment. And when one repeatedly says “the a-cita-me-nope drug” into a hot mic, one has availed oneself. Further, the court has previously found that “[t]here is nothing more vital to the exercise of justice than committing to the bit.” Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff, 75 U.Va 16.
We most recently considered the reach of this court’s personal jurisdiction in In re the Ghastly Specter of Christopher Columbus, 77 U.Va 8 (2024) and Students for Early Spring v. Punxsutawney Phil, 75 U.Va 19 (2023). In both Ghastly Specter of Christopher Columbus and Punxsutawney Phil, the court effectively exercised personal jurisdiction over non-corporeal entities as well as entities that are, at present time, unable to communicate in English. Additionally, in Law Weekly v. The Swarm of Murderous Bees, we also exercised precedent over a swarm of bees only capable of communicating through dance, buzzing, stinging, and general rage. 77 U.Va 2 (2024).
In previous opinions, this court has disagreed with plaintiffs’ positions on personal jurisdiction, namely those who have relied on Punxsutawney and Swarm of Murderous Bees and argued that “the Defendant’s apparent inability to communicate with mortals should be no bar to our exercise of personal jurisdiction.” Ghastly Specter. We further held that, should a Defendant be incapable of intelligent communication, an interpreter would be required in the interest of preventing violations of due process rights and to satisfy the overall ends of justice. We took this burden on knowing that the inherent difficulty of procuring a “paranormal expert able to converse with Fourteenth Century Genoan-Spanish spirits is unduly burdensome,” and “may perhaps prevent this litigation altogether.” 77 U.Va 8 (2024).
Indeed, that affirmative burden did preclude this Court from adjudicating the case, and it was ultimately dismissed after Zak Bagans from Ghost Adventures refused our attempted communiques and actively dodged service of subpoenas. The ends of justice may indeed be threatened by the Court’s inability to communicate with entities such as our own petty dictator Donald Trump and his real-life Skinwalker, RFK Jr. However, the ends of justice are even more threatened by an inability of courts to even contend with such issues. We can no longer turn a blind eye to cases that involve lunacy, ghastly specters, or humans puppeted by brain worms, regardless of their ability—or lack thereof—to communicate in English or in any recognizable human tongue. The Court subsequently finds that Defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue is without merit.
II. Class Certification
The putative class—“anyone with a liver and/or child”—is overbroad. As in Bees, supra, we decline to certify entities incapable of giving coherent deposition testimony. Children say “why?” too much; livers say nothing at all. We therefore certify only the subclass of “law students with headaches,” whose adequacy is demonstrated by their willingness to sit through Civ Pro at 8:30 a.m. and their presence at Law School at all.
III. Conclusion
The motion to dismiss is denied. Class certification is granted in part. The nation’s migraines continue. Acetaminophen remains available over-the-counter, though the Defendants remain unable to pronounce it and I remain unable to spell it. The Court will hear arguments as to damages in a subsequent hearing to be scheduled. So ordered.