Students v. City Folk
73 U.Va 5 (2020)
Justice Graebner delivered the opinion of the Court.
This Court is called upon here to adjudicate a most delicate and complex issue: What, if any, jurisdiction does this Court of Petty Appeals have over actions and transactions occurring off the premises of the Law School?
The gravamen of the complaint is as follows: Petitioners have observed students and probable students congregating in large numbers, especially at close proximity, without a mask and sued, seeking declaratory injunctions to enforce social behavior concerning gatherings. These complaints have been both on-and-off Grounds. With respect to the gatherings on Law School premises, we decline to review this issue, as the failure of people to not be idiotic[1] does not present any interesting questions of appellate review. However, we take up the issue of gatherings off-premises to clarify the question of whether or not we have jurisdiction. Petitioners argue that all gatherings observed are subject to our jurisdiction as by potential contact with law students, persons who work at the school, persons who may come into contact with law students, and so on. Respondents contend that the Court’s jurisdiction extends only to persons on the grounds of the Law School. For the reasons we will discuss, we hold that our jurisdiction is not limited to persons on the Grounds of the Law School but decline to extend it as far as to the Respondents.
At the outset, we recognize Rule 1 of Petty Civil Procedure.[2] Nonetheless, it is clear that this Court is not one in which any grievance may be aired.[3] Doing so would violate our understanding of the due process rights of all persons and give us way too much work. Without restraint on jurisdiction, virtually anyone could be haled in for a roasting without notice, ability to respond, or even knowledge of the forum’s existence.[4] As articulated in Mitchell v. Mitchell and Webb, our jurisdiction must be especially limited when the defendant is impossibly distant and could not possibly know of this forum or respond in person to this court’s roasting. To hale a defendant who cannot respond is most improper.
Further, practical considerations dictate some limits to jurisdiction. To allow unlimited grievances would be to convert this Court into a forum for an unworkably wide range of grievances and send us astray from our mission of adjudicating the petty[5] disputes which pertain to the Law School and are unworthy of any other tribunal. We, therefore, decline to follow the rule proposed by Petitioners in full. Such a rule would go well beyond any statutory grant of jurisdiction, increase the potential for judicial confusion, and as above increase our workload. Finally, this Court takes judicial notice of the numerous other fora available to petitioners for complaint, relief, and mockery. Excessive jurisdictional claims can only risk depriving these fora of potential claims, harming their dignity, and encourage students to forum-shop here. While Petitioners claim that all other fora available are insufficiently procedurally rigorous, we follow the counsel of Hylton v. Guyot,that mere procedural differences or habits of practice do not amount to a forum that deprives Petitioners of essential rights.[6] Just because one forum has a drier sense of humor than another or a higher standard for applying the “law school sucks, deal with it” common-law principle, that does not make it an inappropriate forum to resolve disputes or at least raise them. However, we need not examine if fora are procedurally insufficient for the reasons outlined below.
At the same time, we hesitate to endorse the Respondent’s restrictive jurisdictional theories. The claim that our jurisdiction is restricted territorially to the Law School itself is so absurd as not to require comment. We do not endorse such a cramped formalistic and territorial understanding of jurisdiction. The due process concerns highlighted above do not blind us to the fact that our paper is widely read off-grounds via the internet.[7] Even off-Grounds, there are at least some circumstances where active or constructive notice can be determined. The problems that arise for this school may come from many quarters, and it is the highest foolishness to claim that nothing matters outside of this School as much as some of us may like to pretend this. Nor do transactions at this school limit their effects to our Grounds, as much as we pretend to. An ill-advised frat party on Friday night may sicken a 1L at a critical juncture a week later; an ill-advised meeting in the Law School may do likewise for a librarian in Crozet two weeks hence. Certainly, even basic day-to-day matters in town are part of a stream of activity with the Law School, and the excessively formalist jurisprudence advocated by Respondents denies this. With this in mind, it is clear that this Court should exercise at least some jurisdiction over off-Grounds activity. However, the extent of that jurisdiction must still be determined.
We note that these due process concerns are weakest with respect to current and former students of the Law School. By affiliating with UVA and UVA Law in particular, they can be presumed to consent to our jurisdiction. Notice concerns are also far more limited with respect to current, or former students who are notorious enough to be sued in this forum—they should be reasonably aware of the possibility. Likewise, the practical concerns that we have addressed earlier are far more limited. Jurisdiction over current and former students presents a discrete set of potential cases unlikely to burden us, and we do not seriously entertain the possibility of a flood of non-students seeking to litigate in our courts.[8]
More vexing is the problem of jurisdiction over non-students. Here there is a more difficult danger to due process and a weaker connection to the Law School, as well as a greater danger of vexatious litigation and a greater risk of overloading our docket. At the same time, we do not wish to shut our doors to legitimate claims that are connected to the Law School. An exact test is nearly impossible,[9] but some degree of connection to the Law School is needed. The greater the proximity of the activity to transactions directly involving the Law School, the greater the probability the Court finds jurisdiction. Conversely, the more remote or attenuated the connection, the less likely. The exact analysis, of course, will vary from case to case and plaintiff to plaintiff. But as a rule, while claims against a person within our jurisdiction already will be heard as a rule, claims not against a person within our jurisdiction should clearly have some substantial effect within our jurisdiction.
Applying this rule to the instant case, we see first that all claims against law students for unsafe behavior are clearly availing. With respect to claims against non-law students, jurisdiction will be found to the degree that their unsafe activity was in proximity to law students or persons they knew or should have known would transmit to law students. This, we think, adequately answers issues of notice and availment raised by the due process concerns cited above. We, therefore, find for the petitioners with respect to claims against law students and persons in the above category, remanding all other claims to the district court to allow petitioners to remove residual claims to such other forums as are appropriate.
---
dg4mk@virginia.edu
[1] The Court understands that different people may have different risk thresholds, that some people may be cautious around things that are in fact perfectly safe, that one is unlikely to transmit while eating a picnic while masked with a friend a fishing rod’s distance away. Our concern is with people not doing these things, or the fools in crowds of dozens packed in tight spaces without masks. The court also does not wish to have its comments taken to excuse UVA’s foolishness in reopening, lack of transparency concerning outbreaks on grounds, poor coordination with business serving students, the lack of support to enable businesses to stay shut or reopen on a more limited basis and so on.
[2] “We do what we want.”
[3] See e.g. Jones v. One sandwich called “Reuben” (declining to adjudicate the quality of a sandwich purchased in Brandy Station for lack of nexus with any law student), Sentient Beings v. McConnell (holding that our jurisdiction did not extend to “admittedly truthful generalized complaints about a sitting senator, even one who closely resembles Palpatine).
[4] Yes, Virginia, there are people who do not know of this forum’s existence.
[5] We decline to address the question of whether or not a serious problem of public health is “petty” because, let’s face it, it’s not like anyone actually in charge of things is taking this seriously enough.
[6] See also In Re Aramark(outlining this court’s Forum non Conveniens doctrine).
[7] The court notes the widespread and high readership of our important journalism on whether cereal is or is not a soup. Your Justice sadly dissents on this issue, although this is hardly an important or courageous dissent.
[8] Although respondents included unsolicited materials on the standing of non-students in their brief, all petitioners are current students. We therefore need not address the question of when non-students have standing here in detail, and it is inadvisable to provide excessive dicta on this question. We also note that the question of whether uninfected plaintiffs have standing was adequately and properly resolved by the Court of Petty Claim.
[9] Mostly because we do not feel like working one out since that will take precious time away from yelling on Twitter, rewatching Tiger King because everything old is new again, and listening to emo music.