Court of Petty Appeals: Koeppel, J. v. Beau Pribula

Koeppel, J. 

v.  

Beau Pribula 

79 U.Va 3 (2026)   

Koeppel, J., delivers the opinion of the Court, in which Berklich and Wu, C.J.J., and Boatright, Lozada, Lawson, and Vanger J.J. join. Moore, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part. 

Koeppel, J., delivers the opinion of the Court. 

The bill afore this venerable tribunal alleges that Mr. Beau Pribula, starting quarterback of the Virginia Cavaliers, has engaged in a multi-year campaign, following the plaintiff, Koeppel, J., across the country under the guise of participating in collegiate athletics. The bill further alleges that Mr. Pribula, through both subpar and stellar quarterback play, has both intentionally and negligently inflicted emotional distress upon the plaintiff.  

Mr. Pribula, in absentia, has filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 10 of the Petty Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rule 10, Petty Rules of Civil Procedure Revised Ed. (2024). The Court denies the defendant's motion, finding there to be a genuine dispute of material fact.  

Facts:  

The facts are as follows, and the court accepts all evidentiary inferences in favor of the non-moving party, unless said inferences are forced, strained, or contrary to reason. 

The plaintiff is a graduate of the University of Missouri-Columbia (hereinafter Missouri), a current law student at the University of Virginia School of Law, and a justice of this Court.  

The defendant, Mr. Pribula is the starting quarterback of the Virginia Cavaliers. Defendant previously attended Pennsylvania State University (hereinafter Penn State) and Missouri, where he played collegiate football.  

For eighteen years, plaintiff was a fan of Penn State football. Plaintiff subsequently attended Missouri in 2019, where he embraced the fandom of Missouri’s collegiate football team. Following his graduation from Missouri in 2023, plaintiff enrolled at the University of Virginia School of Law.  

Plaintiff alleges that defendant continues to follow him across the country, despite his public pleas for him to “transfer to another school or just get a normal job like an adult.” 

Discussion 

Jurisdiction:  

Defendant first asserts that this ancient tribunal of law constitutes an impermissible forum for litigating issues of collegiate athletes and tortious conduct. Defendant boldly asserts that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over him and his conduct.  

These claims may quickly be disposed of as this Court has repeatedly adjudicated questions of collegiate football and tortious conduct. See e.g., Morris, Chandler v. National Collegiate Athletic Association 78 U.Va 21 (2026); Albino Squirrel v. UVA Football Fans, 78 U.Va 7 (2025). The eminent Justice Learned Andrew Moore, in dense prose resembling Victorian manuscripts contained within the archives of Eton College, once infamously averred that this Court possesses jurisdiction over collegiate football quarterbacks and collegiate eligibility due to the lost property regime of Japan. Morris, Chandler v. National Collegiate Athletic Association 78 U.Va 21 (2026), citing West, Mark D., Losers: Recovering Lost Property in Japan and the United States, 37 L. & Soc. Rev. 369 (2003). 

This Court adheres to the doctrine of squeak decisis, and Justice Moore’s dubious reasoning remains law in this limited jurisdiction. Mouse v. MICE 77 U.Va 15 (2025) (Demitry, J., concurring).  

Stalking:  

Plaintiff claims that defendant’s transfer to Missouri and subsequent transfer to Virginia creates an irrebuttable presumption that Mr. Pribula has engaged in “stalking.” 

Virginia law criminalizes stalking and recognizes stalking as a distinct tort action. See Code of Virginia, § 8.01-42.3; § 18.2-60.3. 

Defendant asserts that the overlap in his collegiate football career and plaintiff’s education is merely coincidental, and no reasonable jury would conclude that he is “stalking” the plaintiff.  

We disagree. We conclude that a reasonable jury could conclude that no collegiate quarterback would transfer three times in three years to three universities in Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Virginia, respectively, unless they were engaging in stalking.  

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: 

Plaintiff’s second claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress against the defendant relates to his “poor performance” at Missouri and his “stellar performance” at Virginia. Defendant asserts that his performance at Missouri could not reasonably be characterized as negligent. However, this Court has previously sustained a negligence claim for poor performance in a collegiate football game. Albino Squirrel v. UVA Football Fans, 78 U.Va 7 (2025) (Sustaining a negligence claim against Florida State University for playing so badly it hurt). 

Defendant points specifically at Missouri’s winning record in the Southeastern Conference and post-season appearance in the TaxSlayer Gator Bowl against Virginia as evidence of “stellar” or “above-average” performance.  

The Court must begin by assessing the record to determine if there is a genuine dispute of material fact, or more specifically, the Court must look to the 2025 Missouri football record.  

Mr. Pribula commenced the season with resounding victories against noncompetitive opponents, Central Arkansas and Louisiana. In Week two, he raised hopes of the plaintiff by beating the universally disdained Kansas Jayhawks, sending them wallowing across the border to their desolate hinterlands.  

However, the defendant subsequently failed to defeat the Alabama Crimson Tide at home and suffered a dislocated ankle against the Vanderbilt Commodores. Upon his return from injury, he suffered defeat at the hands of the Oklahoma Sooners, eliminating Missouri from College Football Playoff contention. 

As this is a motion for summary judgment, all evidentiary inferences are resolved in favor of the non-moving party, and a reasonable jury could conclude that Mr. Pribula’s poor performance satisfied the Albino Squirrel standard of negligence. Albino Squirrel v. UVA Football Fans, 78 U.Va 7 (2025).  

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) 

Plaintiff claims that by transferring to Virginia from Missouri and immediately establishing himself as a competent quarterback for the Cavaliers, defendant has intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon him.   

“Actions for IIED are recognized when the defendant has taken intentional or reckless action which was extreme, outrageous, and intolerable, and which has caused severe emotional distress.” Law Students on the Brink v.  Grim Reaper, 79 U.Va 2 (2026). 

Defendant disputes that his competent quarterback performance is intentional or reckless conduct that could reasonably be characterized as extreme, outrageous, or intolerable.  

However, this Court’s IIED standard is notoriously low. See Student Body of UVa Law v. Slackers of the Faculty of UVa Law 178 U.Va. 924 (2018) (holding faculty inaction in posting fall grades was intentional and was extreme because it was not just 1Ls who were upset). 

The plaintiff is an irritated 2L, and we resolve all evidentiary inferences in his favor. 

Counterclaim 

Defamation:  

Plaintiff Beau Pribula files a counterclaim against Koeppel, J., alleging defamation, specifically slander, for unrelenting criticism of his performance at Missouri. 

Pursuant to the Petty Rules of Civil Procedure’s General Rules of Pleading, “a party may file a response to a petty pleading, but [the court will] probably ignore it unless it includes: . . . (B) an even pettier counterclaim.” See Rule 5, Petty Rules of Civil Procedure, Revised Ed. (2024).  

While it is undeniably petty to sue a random law student for bumbling musings about college football, the defendant’s counterclaim fails to be more petty than the original petty pleading filed by the plaintiff. 

Thus, we ignore the defendant’s counterclaim for defamation on procedural grounds.  

Conclusion 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied. 

Moore, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 

 The opinion of the learned brother of the court in the aforeopined matter is deserving of utmore respect and deference in this matter than in that of the oft-cited rodentary matter of yesteryear in which the dissent ought to have served as the operative decision. Albino Squirrel v. UVA Football Fans, 78 U.Va 7 (2025) (Moore J., dissenting (“The Court’s preceding, and sadly precedential, decision is more misguided than Luthor’s instruments of 1978, and dissented from, as its foolhardity and facetiality make it more fitting for fiction than the non-fiction for which this forum is famous.” (internal citations omitted))). 

For instance, the claims against the Defendant in the instance of moving from the Farmers' High School of Pennsylvania to that unfortunate result of the Geyer Act are capably carried to a careful conclusion. The Farmers High School of Pennsylvania, https://www.psu.edu/news/impact/story/farmers-high-school-pennsylvania (last visited Sep. 14, 2026); Geyer Act (1839). The author of the same hereby concurs with the learned brother of above in this part of the decision. 

That said, the deliberate departure of the Defendant from Geyer’s Gaffe appears eminently reasonable, as no reasonable actor (or anyone regardless of their theatrical experience) would want to stay in “the [former] slave state of Missouri.” Travis Goff, https://x.com/tgoff11/status/2096766247979413809 (last visited Sep. 14, 2026). Additionally, the lack of citations for the claims of “universally disdained Kansas Jayhawks” and description of Kansas as “desolate hinterlands” speak volumes by being unsaid. Koeppel, J. v.  Beau Pribula, 79 U.Va 3 (2026). From these tangents of the emotional distress analysis, the dissenting in part justice must dissent, even if the same concurs in the overall opinion. 

Lastly, while it has been said that to be both plaintiff and adjudicator is to be conflicted of interest, the majority has perfected the precedent of the court of the same on the matter. COPA v. Public Interest Law Association (PILA) and PILA Auction Winner 78 U.Va 14 (2026) (Moore J., as the plaintiff, majority, and dissent in a case of considerable competency, clarity, clairvoyancy, concisity, and capability).