- Thanks to CuriosityStream
for keeping LegalEagle and bees everywhere in the air. - He's denouncing bees. - And don't y'all date your cousins? - Objection. - Ah, the non-lawyer makes an objection. (playful music) Hey, LegalEagles, it's time
to think like a lawyer. Today we are covering the
highly requested Bee Movie, an animated movie about
bees that sue humanity for stealing their honey. I think this is the movie
I was born to review. Be sure to comment in
the form of an objection, which I will either sustain or overrule, and stick around until
the end of this video where I will give the Bee Movie
a grade for legal realism. So, without further ado,
let's dig in to the Bee Movie. (dramatic news music) - Good evening, I'm Bob Bumble. - And I'm Jeanette Chung. - Our top story, a
tri-county bee, Barry Benson, is saying he intends to sue the human race for stealing our honey, packaging it, and profiting from it illegally. - All right, so, right out of the gate, big problem with Barry's lawsuit: you cannot sue the entire human race. To sue a party in court, they have to be a recognizable
entity that can be sued, an individual, a corporation. Who would show up? Who would hire the attorneys? Who would be the material
witnesses in this case? All of those are reasons why
the human race is not a party that has standing to be sued in court. But it's similar to when
people have tried to sue God in federal and state court. Every few years you
get one of these jokers who thinks it would be cute
to name God as a party, and every time it is rejected. Sometimes the courts just
dismiss the case out of hand because there's no way
to properly notify God because God doesn't have a fixed address to accept service of the lawsuit, and other times they will
let the lawsuit go forward and let the case go into
what's called default, which means that the
propounding party wins because the other party didn't respond. But the problem is
there's no way to recover whatever winnings you might
be entitled to from God, so it's a Pyrrhic victory in either case. - [Barry] Quiet please,
actual work going on here. - Is that that same bee? - [Barry] Yes, it is. - I'm helping him sue the human race. - What? - Okay, so not only can
an individual not sue the entire human race because
that lawsuit would fail, a florist cannot help you
sue another party in court. That is called the
unauthorized practice of law. So, she can actually
get herself into trouble for practicing law when she
doesn't have a law license. - Maybe this could make
up for it a little bit. You know, Barry, this
lawsuit's a pretty big deal. - [Barry] I guess. - Are you sure that you
wanna go through with it? - Am I sure? When I'm done with the humans,
they won't be able to say honey, I'm home without paying a royalty. (dramatic music) - Okay, well, one of the
reasons you hire an attorney is so that you can file your complaint that starts the lawsuit in a
way that the court will accept. You cannot mail in your
complaint to most courts. You have to actually go
down to the courthouse, file the complaint itself, and serve that complaint on other people. Here, what Vanessa has done
is she's just put a document into the mail, mailed it to the court, and nothing is going to happen. They will probably just throw that out because that's not the
proper way to start a lawsuit in New York. Also, if we can rewind it, we can see that she's also
addressed the complaint to the wrong place. She has addressed her complaint to the Superior Court of New York. Now, while the Superior
Court is the correct court in California, the trial court in New York is actually called the Supreme Court. I think the writers for the Bee Movie probably work in Los
Angeles or California, where you call the trial
court the Superior Court. That's not the case in New York, so there are many, many reasons why this complaint would be rejected
by the court in New York. - All right, case number 4475,
Superior Court of New York, Barry Bee Benson versus the honey industry is now in session. Mr. Montgomery, you're representing the five major food
companies collectively. - A privilege. - Okay, so this is interesting. They actually rolled back the lawsuit when they got to court itself. Instead of suing humanity, they are only suing five
farmers who happen to keep bees and happen to harvest and sell the honey. This lawsuit also doesn't work, but for slightly different reasons. - Mr. Benson, you're representing
all bees of the world? (clears throat)
(suspenseful music) - [Audience] Huh? (Barry buzzing) - I'm kidding, I'm kidding. Yes, Your Honor, we're ready to proceed. - All right, so, what Barry
Benson is trying to do here is what's called a class action lawsuit, where a few representative plaintiffs claim that they are representative of a larger class of
people, and as a result, they claim that they should be
able to prosecute the lawsuit on behalf of all of those people
who are similarly affected. So, would Barry Benson be
able to proceed further with a class action lawsuit? Well, let's think like a lawyer. (upbeat rock music) Going with the federal definition, there are some requirements
you have to meet before you're able to proceed further with a class action lawsuit. In a federal system, this
is governed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires you to have one, an adequate class definition. Two, that the class be ascertainable. Three, that there must be numerosity, in other words, a lot of people. Four, there must be commonality amongst all of the class members. Five, there must be typicality between the representative
plaintiffs and the class members. Six, you have to have adequacy of counsel. And seven, you have to meet
some other requirements to show that class action
status is warranted. Here, all of those
requirements are not met. Number one, there is a
terrible class definition. They've defined the class as all bees. Well, some bees haven't
had their honey taken. Some bees have had their
honey taken in different ways. So, the class definition
is necessarily problematic. Number two, the class
has to be ascertainable. There are billions, if not
trillions of bees out there, and there is no way to identify the individually effected bees. Three, numerosity, there's
a lot of bees out there, that probably would be met. But number four is that
there must be commonality amongst all of the class members, and because different bees
are treated differently, there's not enough
commonality amongst the class to move forward. Number five, there is no reason to assume that Barry Benson is typical of all of the other class members. Number six, adequacy of counsel
is definitely not there. Barry's not even a lawyer, so he can't even proceed
with this proceeding, let alone adequately represent
the actual class members that he's trying to move forward with. And for the same reasons, all of the other requirements of Rule 23 are not met as well. So, basically, this class action is absolutely doomed to fail and it would not move forward
in any way whatsoever. (sighing) - And Mr. Montgomery, your
opening statement, please. - Opening statement? You don't go straight
from the first hearing and filing a complaint right into trial. That's totally ridiculous. There would be years of pretrial discovery and motion practice before
you even got to trial, let alone trial happening
on the first day. - Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my grandmother was a simple woman. - Why is there a jury in this case? That also doesn't make sense. And I've mentioned this
a million times before, you don't get to go
straight from counsel table, walk right into the well of the court, and then go straight at the jury. Judges and juries really hate it when you invade the
personal space of the jury, and if you are aggressive about it, the bailiff will tackle you. - Talking bee. How do we know this isn't some sort of holographic motion picture
capture Hollywood wizardry? They could be using laser beams. (jury gasping) Robotics, ventriloquism, cloning. For all we know, he could be on steroids. (all gasping) - That is completely improper argument and would be stricken from the record. - [Judge] Mr. Benson. - Again, he's not a lawyer, he doesn't get to give
an opening statement. - Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there's no trickery here. I'm just an ordinary bee. - And again, you don't get to fly straight from counsel
table directly to the ledge in front of the jury and then
give your opening statement. You're invading the
personal space of the jury, and both the jury and the judge
are not going to allow that. - And as a bee, honey's
pretty important to me. It's important to all bees. We invented it. We make it and we protect
it with our lives. Unfortunately, there are
some people in this room who think they can take
whatever they want from us because we're the little guys. And what I'm hoping is that
after this is all over, you'll see how by taking our honey, you're not only taking
away everything we have, but everything we are. - Okay, so, um, so, bees are what we refer to
in the legal world as chattel. Almost all animals are. It means that they are animate objects that are owned by some other human. And it is fully within the right
of the owner of the chattel to get the fruits of
those particular animals, whether it's milk from cows, or whether it's eggs from
chicken, or honey from bees. If you own those animals, generally, you are entitled
to what they produce. But if bees somehow were able to prove that they were conscious
and fully sentient, then they might have
a conceivable argument that taking honey from them is
a form of conversion or theft to which they would be
entitled to some compensation. Animal rights activists
have tried to give rights to lots of different animals
in different contexts. For example, the famous selfie picture that was taken by a particular monkey. (playful music)
(monkey squawking) But until that time, animals do not have the
same rights as humans. They cannot file a lawsuit, they cannot defend themselves in court, and they do not have property rights. - So, Mr. Klauss
Vanderhayden of Honey Farms, pretty big company you have there. - I suppose so. - And I see you also own Honeyburton, and Honron!
(jury gasping) - Yes, they provide--
- Relevance. - For our farms. - Beekeeper, I find that to
be a very disturbing term, I have to say. I don't imagine you employ
any beefreers, do you? - No.
- I'm sorry-- - Objection, argumentative. - No.
- No. Because you don't free
bees, you keep bees. - Objection, argumentative. - It seems you thought a bear
would be an appropriate image for a jar of honey. - Well, they're very lovable creatures. - Objection, relevance? Why is this relevant? - Build-A-Bear?
- Yeah, you mean like this? (bear growling)
(people screaming) Bears kill bees! - All right, so, in addition
to being completely irrelevant to the court proceedings, I
probably don't need to tell you that when you bring a
demonstrative into court, this is a demonstrative, something
that you bring into court for demonstration of some particular idea, it cannot be a lethal
animal, it cannot be really, probably any animal at all
unless it was like a service dog. This is completely improper. This would be thrown out immediately, and probably a mistrial declared. - [Barry] Well, I just
think it was awfully nice of that bear to pitch in like that. - I'm telling you, I think
the jury's on our side. - Are we doing everything
right, you know, legally? - I'm a florist. - Exactly, she's a florist. Why is she sitting at counsel table? Why is she helping with this lawsuit? That is the unauthorized practice of law. - You know, I just about had
it with your little mind games. - What's that? - Italian Vogue. - Mama mia, that's a lot of pages. - It's a lot of ads. - Remember what Van said. Why is your life any
more valuable than mine? - That's funny, I just
can't seem to recall that. (Barry yelps) I think something stinks in here. - So we learned earlier in the movie that bees cannot be struck by
paper of more than 30 pages. In a world where bees are
sentient and conscious, I think attacking a bee
with a magazine of that size is probably attempted murder. So, you know, tell that
to all your kids, I guess. - Mr. Benson Bee, I'll ask you what I think
we'd all like to know. What exactly is your
relationship to that woman? (Vanessa gasps) - Relevance, character? - Good friends?
- Yes. - How good? Do you live together?
- Wait a minute, this isn't about--
- Are you her little (clears throat)
bedbug? - Hey, that's not the kind--
- I've seen a bee documentary. - People and bees should be
making objections right now. - Queen give birth to all the
bee children in the hives? - Yeah, but-- - So those aren't even your real parents. - Oh Barry.
- Yes, they are. - Improper, character, relevance. - An illegitimate bee, aren't you, Benson? - He's denouncing bees. - And don't y'all date your cousins? - Objection.
- I'm gonna pincushion-- - Ah, the non-lawyer makes an objection. (Barry gasps)
(dramatic music) - Adam, don't, it's what he wants. (Adam groans) - Oh, I'm hit! - Didn't that bee just commit suicide? Important to note that one of the reasons we have a
legal system in the first place is so that we don't
have to rely on violence to solve our problems. And the bees here are
supposed to be the good guys. They're trying to get just
outcome from their lawsuit, and yet, the bee co-counsel
here has given in to his aggression and he has
attacked the opposing party, the opposing attorney,
with his venomous stinger. That's not something that you would want an officer of the court to do, and if in fact he was a real lawyer, he'd probably get disbarred for that. - And assuming you've
done step 29 correctly, you're ready for the tub. - Yeah, you don't get to
talk to the jury like that without the presence of the judge. - Mr. Flayman. - Yes, yes, yes, Your Honor. - [Judge] Where is the rest of your team? - Uh, well, Your Honor, it's interesting. You know, bees are trained
to fly kind of haphazardly, and as a result, quite often,
we don't make very good time. - So, I should point out,
if you are not in court when the judge tells you to be in court, you're in a world of hurt. Judges hate it when lawyers
don't show up on time. They can issue sanctions,
and in the worst case, they can dismiss your case
for not showing up on time. You know, and on further inspection, that co-counsel bee has
attacked the opposing counsel. There is absolutely no way that he would be allowed to
sit at counsel table anymore. Number one, he would be arrested. Number two, the judge would
probably have to declare a mistrial because of the
outburst that occurred. It's not fair to either
party to have to proceed with a tainted jury as a result
of the lawyer's bad conduct in assaulting each other. - How much longer are we going to allow these absurd shenanigans to go on? They have presented no compelling evidence to support their charges
against my clients, who all run perfectly
legitimate businesses. I move for a complete
dismissal of this entire case. - So this happens a lot in movies, where the opposing side will say that the other side has
presented no evidence whatsoever and the case should be thrown out. And usually when they say that, it's at the beginning of the case, when there wouldn't
actually be any evidence. Here, the plaintiff bees
have had ample opportunity to demonstrate the validity of their case by presenting evidence,
and they simply haven't. They've engaged in a bunch of shenanigans, they have not presented
any relevant evidence, and as a result, the opposing
side here is making a motion to dismiss the case. That is actually something you
can do in a real court case. You can move for what's called
a directed verdict or a JNOV. It basically just means that the plaintiff hasn't met their burden and there's no reason in proceeding into the defendant's case because the plaintiff hasn't
met their evidentiary burden in the first place. So this is the first accurate thing that this movie has done. This is the time to make a
motion for a directed verdict. - Where's your proof? Where's the evidence? Show me the smoking gun. - Hold it, Your Honor. You want a smoking gun? Here is your smoking gun.
(dramatic music) (jury gasping) - What is that? - It's a bee smoker. - What, this? This harmless little contraption? This couldn't hurt a fly, let alone a bee. (smoker hissing)
(bees clamoring) - So this is somewhat relevant evidence. You would use the smoke gun to demonstrate that the
bees haven't consented to having their honey
taken away from them, which is one of the
elements you have to show for theft or conversion. That being said, there are
so many other hurdles here, that this would be just a
tiny bit of relevant evidence. It really doesn't get to
the end of the court case, but still, at least it's
relevant evidence for once. - Ladies and gentlemen,
please free these bees. (all cheering) - Free the bees, free the bees! Free the bees, free the bees! Free the bees! - The court finds in favor of the bees. - Yeah, that's something
that happens in movies all the time, it does not
happen in real life at all. The judge cannot decide in
the middle of the court case to just grant the verdict
in favor of the plaintiffs. This would be overturned
on appeal immediately because the defendants have
been denied their due process. - [Reporter] Congratulations
on your victory. What are you going to
demand as a settlement? - [Barry] First, we're gonna
demand a complete shutdown of all bee work camps. - Yeah, that would not happen. - [Barry] Then we wanna
get back all the honey that was ours to begin
with, every last drop. - So, when you win a lawsuit, generally you are entitled
to monetary compensation. You can sometimes get back
the actual physical things that you feel you are entitled to. That is a legal concept
called specific performance. You are getting the defendants to give you the specific thing that you
think you're entitled to. Generally, that happens
in real estate cases because real estate is always unique, but if it's possible to
give financial compensation, the court almost always will
give financial compensation. And there's no reason that the bees couldn't be
given financial compensation instead of a return of all of the honey. On top of that, all of the
things that they are getting in this potential settlement would never be given by the court, it's completely unrealistic
and would never happen. - We demand an end to the
glorification of the bear as anything more than a filthy, smelly, bigheaded, bad-breath, stink machine. I believe we're all aware of
what they do in the woods. (grunting) Wait for my signal. (gun cocks)
- Huh? - [Barry] Take him out. (gun fires)
(Pooh yelps) - He'll have a little
nausea for a few hours, then he'll be fine. - Yeah, if you're entitled to
compensation for your honey, you don't then get to assault other people for some weird reason. Why the bees hate the bears? That's a whole separate issue, I guess. - [Barry] And we will no longer tolerate derogatory bee-negative nicknames. - But it's just a prance-about stage name. - And that's a First Amendment violation. - [Barry] Health products and la-dee-da human tea
time snack garnishments. (groaning) - And there's no reason why
an injunction would be granted to prevent people from using the honey that's already in the stream of commerce. (playful music) Okay, so that's the Bee Movie,
but how realistic is it? Well, it's time to give
the Bee Movie a grade for legal realism. (gavel banging) The Bee Movie effectively
gets everything wrong about lawsuits. Bees and florists cannot be lawyers. The process by which the
court proceeded in this case is completely wrong and
would be grounds for appeal. Everything that happened in that case is completely unrealistic. About the only thing they got right was that the opposing
attorney made a motion for a directed verdict
at about the right time. So, I give the Bee Movie a
solid B for legal realism. Actually, I'm just kidding, it gets an F. It's terrible. It's the most unrealistic thing
I've ever seen in my life. But, you know, kids movie,
so what are you gonna do? - If you don't move, he
won't sting you, freeze. - The Bee Movie teaches us that it's okay to be
curious about your world. It also teaches us that it's
hard out there for a bee. (Barry yelping) - Help me! - Even though bees can't sue humanity, they are facing a crisis of extinction. After watching the Bee Movie, I pulled up a great documentary about bees on CuriosityStream called More Than Honey. It talks about this
worldwide bee phenomenon, why bees are in danger and
what we can do about it. - I'm just saying all life has value. You don't know what
he's capable of feeling. - Real bees are not as
cute as the Bee Movie, but they still play a vital
role in our ecosystem. If you're as curious about
the world as Barry Bee Benson, you should check out CuriosityStream. LegalEagles will get a free
account on CuriosityStream for 31 days by clicking on the link below or using the promo code LegalEagle. Using the promo code really
helps out this channel. So click on the link below and check out the greatest
documentaries on the planet. So, do you agree? Leave your objections in the comments, and check out my other
lawyerly reactions over here in this playlist, where
I will see you in court.
