UVA Law v. Barracks Road Chipotle
74 U.Va 9 (2021)
J. Wunderli delivered the opinion of the Court.
It is with a heavy heart that this Court once again has to defend the right of citizens of UVA Law to a decent meal. In the past, this Court has dealt with a myriad of issues, ranging from the cafeteria to the free food table. In many respects, these issues have been rather mundane and predictable. Occasionally, a change in snack options will draw the ire of the Court. (See e.g., Students v. Small Bag of Goldfish). In other instances, a free food table thief will be brought to our attention and swiftly apprehended (See Students v. 1L Cookie Monster). The COVID-19 pandemic has brought a catastrophic shortage of free food that has threatened the very survival of some of the law school’s most prolific mooches.[1]
The issue before the Court today transcends many of the bounds of prior cases for one reason: Chipotle is not free. Not only do the students of UVA Law have to spend hard-earned federal loan dollars on their burrito bowls, but Chipotle has consistently and egregiously failed to deliver the promised product. While the pandemic provided a convenient excuse for many of the problems the Barracks Road Chipotle has faced, this Court will no longer tolerate this level of negligence over a year and a half after the start of the COVID-19 outbreak. The complaints presented to this Court are as follow:
Frequent and random closures without prior notice.
Extremely long and inconsistent wait times for online orders.
In-store dining closures without notice.
Failure to stock food items ranging from peppers to black beans, without offering any remedy.
Charging money for water when they were out of regular water cups.
COVID-19 guidelines that inexplicably change on a seemingly day-to-day basis.
General lack of cleanliness and order.
The Complainants have offered compelling and comprehensive evidence backing all of the alleged wrongs. In what has been a largely bipartisan issue, law students from all walks of life have come together to protest, some even venturing to McDonald’s across the street to demonstrate their solidarity. It is common sense that an established chain restaurant must be held to a higher standard than, let’s say, the Dean of Snacks, who has little to gain from catering to all of our idiosyncratic palates. And yet, where the Dean of Snacks consistently delivers, Chipotle does not. Imagine the uproar that occurs when a greedy 1L has to settle for Chex Mix instead of Goldfish? Or when SBA only has one keg at a Spies Garden social? While these actions may constitute ordinary negligence, the actions of the Barracks Road Chipotle rise to the level of gross negligence.
Pictured: Exhibit A. Photo Courtesy of Nate Wunderli '22
The Respondent argues that if students do not want to go to Chipotle, they have other options and can go somewhere else. Far from offering an apology to students, Chipotle attempts to paint the students as the party at fault for choosing to eat at their restaurant. Just go eat Chick-fil-A, they say. Or eat a McDonald’s $3 bundle, that, as of last week, is now $3.50. Or spend $15 on a burger and fries at Five Guys. This argument has no merit for several reasons. First, students have no way of knowing when the Chipotle is closed. Students might very well choose to eat somewhere else if they knew that Chipotle was closed. But now said student has to walk all the way up to the Chipotle, stare in dismay at the “Store Closed” sign, before plodding back to their car and driving somewhere else. Students also have no way of knowing when the store is out of peppers, beans, or cups until they’ve survived the line and are waiting to order. Some students rely on Chipotle for their daily consumption of vegetables, only to find the vegetables conspicuously missing in action. Respondent also ignores the fact that students often do not have a lot of time, and therefore are confined to the limited options in the Barracks shopping center. If you want something reasonably healthy yet also filling, Chipotle may be the only option.
As a franchised business, Chipotle owes its customers a certain duty of care. When one enters a franchise, they have certain expectations that arise from reputation and having been to other stores of the same franchise. One of the reasons franchises are able to be so successful is that consistency and familiarity, which in turn breeds loyalty and trust. Through what can only be described as extreme mismanagement or an intentional lack of care, this Chipotle has breached the trust of its most vulnerable customer, debt-ridden UVA Law students, and therefore is liable to the plaintiff students in the form of compensatory and punitive damages, the extent of these damages to be decided by a jury.
Stephens, J. concurring.
I write separately to affirm the Court’s jurisdiction over Chipotle. The majority ignores this essential feature of the brief for the defendant, which spends much of its time insisting that “there must be some mistake” and “this must be some kind of joke.”[2] No, it is not some kind of joke. The Court of Petty Appeals must maintain its dignity and composure, even in light of the insolence of the brief for the defendant. [3]
The Court of Petty Appeals possesses the power of judicial review for “any and all decisions, conflicts, and disputes that arise involving, either directly, indirectly, or tangentially, the Law School or its Students.”[4] The brief for the defendants argues that it is “not a part of your crazy Law School and you don’t have any authority over us so stop trying to serve us with notice.”[5] While it is true that the Barracks Road Chipotle is, indeed, not part of the esteemed University of Virginia School of Law, it is within the emanations and penumbra of the Tangentiality Clause, which extends to any dispute tangentially involving students of the Law School. Therefore, the Barracks Road Chipotle is within our jurisdiction and subject to our petty whims and rulings. For this and the reasoning adopted by the majority, I respectfully concur.
Pazhwak J., concurring.
For many Americans, particularly those in the broke and busy student demographic, Chipotle has become a dietary staple. Their longstanding track record of quick service, affordable pricing, tasty food, and quality ingredients has created reliance on the franchise by many across the country to meet their nutritional needs. The Barracks Road Chipotle, and its relationship with UVA Law students, provides an excellent example of this, with students who are primarily nourished on cheese pizza, packages of snacks, and whatever else they can scavenge from clubs, journals, and events, receiving critical infusions of protein and vegetables from their Chipotle bowls. All while these students, at the same time, not being forced to sacrifice inordinate amounts of precious time to get their food, nor unduly increase their crushing debt loads while doing so.
Based on these established facts, an alternative theory of the case is better applied, namely the principle of promissory estoppel. Complainants argue that they have relied on Chipotle for “fast casual” dining at an affordable price and have now had the proverbial rug pulled out from under them with the substandard performance they have encountered in recent months at the Barracks Road location. It is clear there was no formal consideration between Chipotle and complainants; however promissory estoppel is implicated if Chipotle made a promise that UVA Law students relied on to their detriment. This presents the question of whether such a promise existed. In examining Chipotle’s past behavior in the aggregate, including, but not limited to, stable business hours, availability of ingredients, and adequate staffing, one can find an implied promise that such behavior would exist in the future in a substantially similar manner. Indeed, such a promise is the main reason one would go to Chipotle in the first place, and not to another bowl-based restaurants such as Cava, Roots, or the very similar but just not-quite-there Qdoba. It is clear, based on the facts before this Court, that this promise was not met based on the conditions complainants have been consistently met with in recent months at the Barracks Road location. It is also clear that UVA Law students suffered substantial loss from this broken promise as Justice Wunderli has described. While the case has been decided on a theory of tort law, I add this concurring opinion to show that the nearly limitless power of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, and its ability to throw the principles of contract law out of the proverbial window when a judge so decides, provides the proper legal approach to this case. With it, the Court can correct this gravely petty wrong that has been done to complainants and make them as well off as they would have been if they had guacamole and their order fifteen minutes earlier on a given day or had not been forced to defect to the nearby, and very inviting, Taco Bell drive-thru.
Tonseth, C.J., dissenting.
Straight up, Associate Justice Wunderli is just plain wrong in this case. However, as my boi threw me two touchdown passes in our flag football league this week, I’ll spare roasting his lack of any legal reasoning skills to go on my own personal diatribe. I mean, who reads the dissents anyway?
First, this dissent serves to put Student Affairs on notice. The past two Fridays, there has not been cookies out for students to enjoy. This cannot stand. We the Court have previously enjoined Student Affairs from revoking Free Cookie Fridays, and I am not afraid to revive Associate Justice Stievater’s opinion. Be warned.
Second, buy your tickets to Fauxfield. Nobody needs an excuse to Darty, but a Darty that has endless pizza? Sign me up, yesterday. Plus, there will be pumpkins, hay bales, and all of the other cute stuff to make your Insta glow-up for the weekend. If you’re claiming “you have class on Fridays,” remember, the ABA only requires eighty percent attendance. If you’re still worried about skipping class and missing “important information,” hit me up and I’ll get you an outline for the class.
Third, buy your tickets to PILA and buy cool stuff from their silent auction. Will you ever really need fly fishing lessons in front of the Law School? Absolutely not. Will buying softball lessons from me help you hit the ball into the construction zone? Also no, but my services are for hire for the playoffs to the highest bidder. Will buying things from the auction help your fellow classmates have a livable summer experience while you sit at a kush firm job? 1,000 percent. Buy your ticket, bid on things, dress up pretty, and don’t claim that it’s too close to finals and you need to study. You’re at UVA Law. I’ve made it this far with only going to the library 6 times my entire 3 years. You can skip one Saturday night of studying.
In conclusion, Associate Justice Wunderli’s analysis is as lacking as his ability to show up to anything on time, his ability to hit an open receiver in flag football, and the current COVID protocols to prevent a bad spread right before fall break. For these reasons, I dissent.
---
nw7cz@virginia.edu
cs8ws@virginia.edu
mwp8kk@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu
[1] Ari Anderson ’22, Nate Kresh ’22. Oh yeah, and me.
[2] Brief for Defendant at 2, UVA Law v. Barracks Chipotle, 74 U. Va. 9 (2021)
[3] We have already been lenient with the defendant in even considering their “brief” which took the form of an irate email. It is within our discretion to consider when we will waive our own rules of procedure in the pursuit of justice.
[4] See, the COPA heading that’s literally above every opinion.
[5] Defendant, supra note 1.