1Ls
v.
2Ls and 3Ls
75 U.Va 6 (2022)
Pazhwak, J. delivers the opinion of the court.
This class action suit comes to us from the District Court of Petty Complaints (“DCPC”), where Appellants, the University of Virginia School of Law (“UVA Law”) Class of 2025 (“the 1Ls”), challenge an injunction enjoining their over-consumption of Law School event food, and the concomitant practice of forming ridiculously long queues at events to obtain said food. Appellees, the UVA Law Classes of 2023 and 2024 (“the 3Ls” and “the 2Ls,” respectively), while seeking to maintain the injunction, also request reconsideration of the issue of compensatory and punitive damages against the 1L class as an additional remedy for harms suffered.
Furthermore, this Court has decided to hear a separate, yet linked, issue on appeal from the DCPC, brought by the 3Ls and 2Ls against the UVA Law Office of Student Affairs (“Student Affairs”). Appellants in that case, the 3Ls and 2Ls, seek a writ of mandamus compelling Student Affairs to increase student organization budgets to bring them in line with larger class sizes and rampant inflation, thereby partially preempting the issue of inadequate supply.
Background
As the 3Ls, and to a much lesser extent, the 2Ls, well know, the pandemic brought severe disruptions to life at UVA Law. This was especially apparent with the lack of events put on by the Law School’s many affinity groups, academic forums, social clubs, and other student associations during the 2020–2021 year.[1] They slowly began to recover in the 2021–2022 year; however, there were still consistently small event turnouts, with the then-largely absent 3Ls, estranged 2Ls, and indifferent 1Ls providing little in the way of participation. Yet a silver lining quickly became apparent: an abundance of food and short lines for the law students attempting to get it. A law student could go days in a row living solely off event food, not only getting sufficient calories but also, according to several affidavits, eating quite well. Sometimes, very well. There were Roots bowls galore, Panera boxes of all kinds, Mellow Mushroom pizza, Bodo’s Bagels, Ivy Provisions, and Chick-fil-A sandwiches in abundance. There were dinners, breakfasts, and ever-present leftovers sitting on that most cherished of Law School sites: the free food table. GroupMes would fill to the brim with alerts, with pictures of foods hailing from the varied culinary traditions present in Charlottesville, calling to be consumed. It was a time of abundance and plenty, especially for that thrifty, industrious subset of law students with the open ear, the hungry stomach, and the iron-willed determination to offset their high tuition.
Starting in the Fall of 2022, a disturbing trend began to upset this state of affairs. As evidence submitted by Appellees has shown, there is no longer even a surplus, much less an abundance, of food. For example, there are images of a Common Law Grounds (“CLG”) event with tables that were picked clean of food by the time the event actually began, according to the timestamps, denying even the marginally late law student any reward for their attendance.[2] A similar situation was documented at the Law, Innovation, Security & Technology (“LIST”) general body meeting, with one 3L reporting many empty boxes and only meager slices of cheese pizza remaining upon their arrival. 2L testimony regarding the Constitution Day Conversation with A. E. Dick Howard and Bertrall Ross described a line stretching out of the door, with some students never laying eyes on the supposedly available food. The days of plenty were evidently over,[3] and competition at UVA Law had once again extended beyond courses, job hunts, and clerkships to the sphere of consumption.
Analysis
Appellants contend that the DCPC committed an abuse of discretion in granting a permanent injunction after applying the following four factor test: “(1) that the plaintiff has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for the injury; (3) that the remedy in equity is warranted upon consideration of the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant; and (4) that the permanent injunction being sought would not hurt public interest.”[4] Regarding factor one, Appellants assert that the 3Ls and 2Ls have suffered no injury, and merely have been forced to contend with the level of food availability at UVA Law that existed before pandemic disruptions. Regarding the second factor, Appellants argue that no remedy was warranted, absent the lack of injury under factor one. Regarding factor three, Appellants argue that the 3Ls and 2Ls endure no greater hardship than the 1Ls, who have an equally legitimate interest in eating what food is available at events. Finally, regarding the fourth factor, Appellants claim that it is not in the public interest to enjoin 1L overconsumption, with the proper approach instead derived from the property principle in Pierson v. Post, with the first-in-time consumption of food establishing rightful possession.[5] Indeed, they assert that a conniving subset of 3Ls and 2Ls, who they allege were instrumental in bringing this case before the DCPC, are attempting to use the law to maintain their fiefdoms of free food, with the vast majority of 3Ls and 2Ls actually being indifferent to the matter and not likely to benefit from the injunction.
We find the appellants’ reasoning woefully inadequate. Not only have the 1Ls not even taken Property yet, but they will never know what it was like for UVA Law students during the pandemic. Indeed, even the 2Ls do not know much beyond mandatory masking. For the 3Ls, Zoom doctrinal classes, the five-person gathering rule, GroupMe ugliness, anonymous reporting, and an atmosphere of mutual suspicion are only some of the experiences that constitute ongoing injuries. Whatever small silver linings they managed to grasp from the experience ought to be maintained in the interest of justice. Indeed, the 2Ls really should not be entitled to the same level of relief as the 3Ls, absent this same injury. However, this Court is magnanimous to the 2Ls, whether it ought to be or not.[6] Thus, this Court upholds the DCPC permanent injunction limiting 1L consumption to 33.3% of event food, regardless of the number of them present at an event, reflecting the breakdown of grades at the Law School. Thus, 66.7% of all food will be reserved for 2Ls and 3Ls.
Regarding the issue of only a subset of 2Ls and 3Ls benefiting from food abundance, this Court finds that so long as event food is open to all 2Ls and 3Ls, it cannot be helped that some law students take greater advantage of the resources available to them than others.
Regarding the additional issue of whether compensatory and punitive damages ought to be paid by the 1Ls to the 2Ls and 3Ls, this Court finds that while they might be warranted, given evidence of 3L and 2L deprivation, so long as the injunction is complied with, the issue need not be taken further. However, if future claims are brought against the 1Ls, perhaps further remedies might be justified.
Finally, the additional issue on appeal, brought by the 3Ls and 2Ls as a class, against Appellee, Student Affairs, is whether a writ of mandamus compelling Student Affairs to increase student organization budgets to reflect a great number of students and high levels of inflation was properly denied. As a procedural matter, while this case involves at least one party not present in the appeal covered in the previous discussion, it was properly joined to the earlier case, per the Petty Rules of Civil Procedure. Substantively, we find that the DCPC may have erred in denying mandamus; however, this would require a greater look at the administrative record. It is a duty of Student Affairs to take care of the affairs of students, and absent a more detailed showing for why student organization budgets have not kept up with inflation or greater student numbers, their decision not to take such care must be regarded as arbitrary and capricious. We thus remand this matter to the DCPC, where Student Affairs will have an opportunity to make the proper showing to substantiate student organization budget levels, considering prevailing Law School and societal conditions.
Sandu, J., dissenting.
This Court’s position is, at best, myopic. It ignores the fundamental purpose behind offering free food—to get 1Ls to sign up for organizations and do all of the work. Such a strategy is employed by this very court, where the perfume of pizza wafting down the halls has attracted many a future Justice. I would argue that a 3LOL can only exist if 1Ls are taking up everyone’s time by asking questions and filling seats, allowing 3Ls to comfortably fade into the background. I am troubled by the cavalier (no pun intended) attitude the Court has taken towards this potentially devastating outcome.
Further, even at hosted events with no long-term organizational repercussions, having a crowd of 1Ls makes it socially acceptable for 2Ls and 3Ls to come at the end and take food, because nobody is going to notice them. While my colleagues may argue that they only seek to enjoin 1Ls from eating all of this food, they ignore the fact that nobody goes to any event if there isn’t food. Bringing this suit thus dangerously discourages 1Ls from participating in events, placing the burden on 2Ls and 3Ls. These are not the incentive structures we want to create. Lastly, how do you expect 1Ls to ever be able to fully integrate into the Law School if we deny them that most sacred of traditions—free food? Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
---
mwp8kk@virginia.edu
ms7mn@virginia.edu
[1] Aside from plentiful well meaning, if horribly awkward, Zoom events.
[2] Is event attendance a reward in itself? This Court reserves judgment.
[3] It ought to be noted that food aplenty can still be found every Monday in the office of UVA Law’s most esteemed publication, the Law Weekly, but only for those with the desire to contribute to its fearless journalism and unparalleled wit.
[4] Injunction, LII, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/injunction (last visited Oct. 2, 2022).
[5] 3 Cai. R. 175 (1805).
[6] See Kulkarni v. Tonseth, 74 U.Va. 9 (2021).
Background