Court of Petty Appeals: Students Learning in Person v. UVA Dept. of Parking and Transportation
73 U.Va. 1 (2020)
Justice Re delivered the opinion of the Court.
In these uncertain times,[1] this case requires us to decide whether the district court properly granted summary judgment for a group of students suing the UVA Department of Parking and Transportation (Department) over a $3 to $5 per month increase in the parking permit fees. The students argued that, since their ability to be on Grounds has been significantly restricted, this probably violated something they learned in Contracts as 1Ls. While the situation is rapidly evolving,[2] in light of this Court’s recent decision in Entire Student Body v. School of Law, 72 U.Va. 29 (2020)—which, for reasons passing understanding, established that the Law School can charge students for things it does not provide—we are bound to hold that the district court abused its discretion in granting summary judgment for the students.
I.
During the 2020-2021 academic year, the price of annual parking permits increased $3 to $5 per month. The Department claims that this increase is to “cover the cost of reconfiguring parking lots to ensure that each car can be parked six feet away from other cars, in compliance with new social distancing guidelines.” Brief for Respondent at 27. The class of Plaintiffs consists of students taking in-person classes. They argue, among other things, that because many events on Grounds are canceled, there are fewer classes meeting on Grounds, in-person classes will end before Thanksgiving Break, and changing circumstances may require self-isolation, it is unconscionable to charge the full amount, much less increase the fee.
The district court granted summary judgment for the students and the Court of Petty Parking Appeals affirmed. Transcript of Oral Argument at 2, Students Learning in Person v. UVA Dep’t of Parking and Transp., 68 Parking 2d ___ (Parking 2020) (“Seriously? They’re still charging people for permits? Obviously, we’re going to rule for you guys, but please use your full time. It’s been so lonely. I never thought I’d miss all the parking ticket disputes.”). We granted certiorari and now reverse.
II.
First, we must assure ourselves of jurisdiction. The Department argued that the amount of the increase is too small to amount to an actual harm. To this we reply: too small? As in, too petty? The Department made a perfectly reasonable argument, but petty disputes are our entire docket. The threshold for actual harm in petty court is pretty generous. See, e.g., Bluebook v. 1Ls, 63 U.Va. 164 (2010) (holding that the editors of the Bluebook could sue a group of 1Ls who “negligently failed to italicize the period after id. Or maybe they did italicize it? We don’t know what the rule is and refuse to look it up, but fine, they can sue.”).
III.
In upholding summary judgment, the lower court failed apply our recent precedent in Entire Student Body v. School of Law. The Entire Student Body Court clearly held that the School can charge students for things it does not provide. Students argued that because the admissions literature touted the quality of student life at the Law School, which included “opportunities to attend events, make friends, and network” as well as the quality of the academic experience, which included “access to places to study, opportunities go to professors’ offices, in-person instruction, [blah, blah, blah],” full tuition was not appropriate. Brief for Petitioners at 3, Entire Student Body, 72 U.Va. 22 No. 20-125. The School, which spend most of its brief scrupulously avoiding any mention of the fact that students are still being charged full tuition,[3] slipped up briefly and commented on the question at issue. They argued that tuition should not be reduced since in-person and online classes both “offer the same academic content and ability for students to earn credit.”[4]
In reaching its holding, the Court relied heavily on “well-meaning gestures” performed by the School to hold that the School can still charge students full tuition. For example, the Court noted that the Dean’s Office sent out cards saying that they were “thinking of you during these challenging times” and that at least two professors are still responding to emails and meeting virtually with students to go over exams. Entire Student Body, 72 U.Va. at 30.
Moreover, the Court reached its holding in spite of the fact that the School implicitly acknowledged that it does not only offer academic credit to its students. The record showed that the Administration rejected a proposal from Student Records to redesign the admissions brochure. Student Records said, “Since the only real purpose of law school is to test whether students can navigate labyrinthine requirements from our office, the admissions brochure should just be an 8.5 x 11 sheet of plain white paper saying, ‘If you successfully figure out how to register for all the classes you need to graduate, you will get a J.D.’ To figure out when applications are due, complete the following eighty-seven-step scavenger hunt. Step one can be found here [highlighted screenshot].’”
In this case, the students argued that Entire Student Body should be overturned. But we are bound by stare decisis. This Court’s formulation of that doctrine is clear: The issue is not whether the previous case was correctly decided; the issue is whether we want to re-read the previous case. As a general rule, we do not. 1Ls Writing LRW Memos v. Library, 71 U.Va. 42 (2019) (“Yes, we know we were wrong to say the library didn’t have to stay open 24/7 the day before LRW memos are due, but please stop bringing it up.”). It does not matter that it was a divided court.[5] Because Entire Student Body is controlling, the Department is within its authority to charge students for things not being provided as long as it has performed “well-meaning gestures.”
* * *
We remand this case for further proceedings to determine whether the Department made the sort of “well-meaning gestures” which would satisfy the standard set by this Court in Entire Student Body.
It is so ordered.
---
wdr3mq@virginia.edu
[1] All written communications must now begin with the phrase, “In these uncertain [or unprecedented or trying] times.” See, e.g., the emails in your inbox from every company that has ever gotten your email address.
[2] Written correspondence also must include this phrase. Phrases which notify the reader that the “circumstances/conditions” are “changing/developing” “quickly/on a daily basis” are also acceptable. See Your Inbox supra, at 1.
[3] See also every email from the School since May. Return to Grounds: Information for UVA Law Students, Univ. of Va. Sch. of L., https://www.law.virginia.edu/protected/coronavirus-student/information-uva-law-students (last visited Aug. 24, 2020).
[4] This sentence is not satire. That’s what the University actually said. See FAQs for Students, Univ. of Va., https://studentsonGrounds.virginia.edu/faqs/students (last visited Aug. 24, 2020).
[5] A dissent joined by several justices stated, “What the actual f***! Of course we shouldn’t be getting charged full price! The same credit is being offered?? Are you f***ing kidding me?? That wouldn’t pass even the most forgiving sniff-test for complete and utter b***s**t!! Has everyone completely lost their f***ing minds?? I respectfully dissent.” Entire Student Body, 72 U.Va. at 31.