City of Charlottesville v. Student Affairs
74 U.Va 20 (2022)
LAKE, C.J. delivers the opinion of the COURT.
The issue before us is a mix of Land Use and Antitrust, two issues we love to misinterpret. The mixture of arbitrary common law and wanton infringement of constitutional rights is ripe ground for the Court of Petty Appeals. Here, Plaintiff City of Charlottesville alleges Defendant Student Affairs has improperly infringed on their best gig—the City Market.
I. Argument
Plaintiff has accused Student Affairs of improperly operating a produce stand at the Law School on two (2) separate occasions this semester, with apparent plans to continue through the spring. The City of Charlottesville claims this produce stand is a barefaced attempt by Student Affairs to impede the operation of the city market, a Charlottesville tradition hosted downtown every fall and spring. Plaintiff identifies two routes for the Court to find in their favor: the Charlottesville City Code, and Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
Not In My Law School
The Charlottesville City Market is a large farmers market hosted every fall and spring at 100 Water Street. It brings together local craftspeople, food trucks, and fresh produce into one delightful parking lot.
Plaintiff points to the the Charlottesville City Code for the basis of their land use claim. “The city market shall be operated for the accommodation of any person desiring to make retail sales of farm produce, foodstuffs, art work or handicrafts grown or produced by them, members of their family or farm laborers employed by them upon property owned or leased by the seller.” Code 1990, § 8-2. This language, Plaintiff claims, gives the City domain over all non-grocery store sales of farm stuffs. They argue the “accommodation of any person” means the “accommodation of every person.” On review, Plaintiff acknowledges this claim is not based on any solid legal foundation, but feels strongly it is nonetheless correct.
Plaintiff is clearly empowered by the State of Virginia to establish a city market. Code of Virginia, § 15.1-880. We are less convinced Plaintiff has been delegated this right to the exclusion of all other markets. For one, this Court is a big fan of the market at IX park, which is not run by the City. While its website may be totally incomprehensible, this Court is a fan of anything with IX in the title. (It’s a joke, don’t come at us for the pronunciation.)
Busting the Trust
Charlottesville City Market has been the best game in town for fresh produce since 1973, and now the Law School has begun wading in with a ready supply of captive customers. Discovery has revealed the most recent produce stand signup sold out in about five minutes. Plaintiff alleges the Law School has been running their produce stand with predatory pricing with the intent of monopolizing the farmer’s market market.
Predatory pricing happens when a firm sells its goods below cost in order to drive its competitors out of business. Once it wins a monopoly, the predatory firm is free to jack up the prices unchecked by all but the most dedicated FTC commissioner. Student Affairs has priced their produce at zero (0) dollars. Discovery found its justification for doing so was “God forbid we ever do anything nice for you ingrates.”
The Court finds this reasoning persuasive. For one, while free produce may seem to be the great equalizer, findings show students who are slow typers or infrequent email checkers are routinely excluded from participation. Second, law students and their irresponsible loan taking are the backbone of the city market. The twenty dollar vendor signup fee is nominal—it’s the sweet, sweet six percent daily slot fee at the market that keeps this city running. Student Affairs may not provide enough produce for all, most, or even a good portion of students, but they do make me so mad when my form submission doesn’t go through or the stand starts a half hour early while I’m in class, that I am subsequently less likely to participate in other markets. Perhaps this is part of their monopolization strategy.
II. Conclusion
We find that the more farmer’s markets, the better. Free cookies might heal the soul, but they do nothing to help the population of Law Students in the early stages of scurvy. While pizza may be a vegetable and more than enough to sustain the average Law Weekly editor, this Court can only encourage more fresh produce on grounds.
We also find Student Affairs has yet to find the optimal distribution system. Have they considered, perhaps, a personalized “market share” service that can be ordered online and delivered? Unrelated, we find the use of the term “produce stand” is far too close to “farm stand,” a known trigger for a significant portion of former LRW students (great job getting your brief turned in, 1Ls). If the Law School produce stand is to continue, a more neutral term should be used instead.
To my haters in the dissent: I am taking names, and I do hold grudges.
Tonseth J. Emeritus, dissenting.
I’ve literally never decided a case while serving on this Esteemed Court in the favor of Student Affairs. Unfortunately for my haters, it seems as though today is the day that an old dog learns a new trick. The classic school yard taunt of “Up high, down low, too slow!” should govern here and is a blatant miscarriage of justice by the current Chief Justice to ignore this critical tenant.
For one, the amount of free food in this school is redonkulous. If I could do the math, and cared to, I guarantee aggregating the costs of food I’ve had provided by the school would equal to close to a years worth of tuition. Requiring “fresh food” options just seems like we’re pandering to a vocal minority. There’s plenty of grass already in Spies Garden, stop asking for more greenery.
Two, I’m anti-trusting of the majority’s opinion. They both want the produce stand, but also for students to support outside produce stands. Seems like a double standard to me from someone who wants double proportions.
This is just a bad decision that I pray gets discarded to the annals like the idea that 1Ls deserve rights. For this, I dissent.
Kulkarni J., dissenting.
I write separately to dissent from the court deciding this case on the merits. From what I remember from civil procedure,[1] courts tend to find a way to dismiss cases on procedure when possible. As our name suggests, we only deal with petty issues. Things like property debates and antitrust issues with the City seem too far out of our purview. Chief Justice Lake goes out of her way to connect this to the student body–the reality is that I can’t imagine anything that the average law student cares about less than fresh produce. As she admits, we all know that pizza is our favorite vegetable. Amongst the minority of us that do cook, we tend to find our vegetables rotting in the refrigerator from lack of use. In my personal opinion, the effect on the student body writ large is too small for this court to take up this case in the first place. I respectfully dissent.
Stephens, J., concurring in disposition.
While my esteemed colleagues in the majority opinion speak well and broadly in their analysis of the land use statutes of the City of Charlottesville, some may find the conclusion to be “vague and unconvincing.”[2] I would urge the majority to consider the small potatoes, which can be found to be delicious and tasty, far better than the free pizza which is so graciously provided to the chambers of this esteemed Court.[3] While these potatoes were both excellent and free, land use statutes are nothing at which to sneeze.[4] However, rather than finding that the City of Charlottesville is the governing body, I would urge the majority to reach the same finding on the basis of the Clean Waters Act, under which the Law School Grounds are probably considered a “wetland” of the Rivanna River, and the produce is almost definitely considered “fill” material after it has resided on the students’ shelves until going bad and being thrown into a landfill.[5] Under this standard, the farmers’ market should be ordered to cease operation and pay daily fines until proper certification is acquired from the Army Corp of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency.
---
dl9uh@virginia.edu
cs8ws@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu
omk6cg@virginia.edu
[1] Which is more than most classes–Professor Bamzai I promise I do pay attention in your classes!
[2] We believe this is either a quote from Justice Scalia or K2-S0, but simply cannot be bothered to find out which is responsible.
[3] Any queries seeking to have any Justices recused due to connections to Domino’s will be redirected to our waste disposal technicians
[4] A separate, though related, inquiry regarding the market’s impact on seasonal allergies has been summarily dismissed.
[5] 33 USCS 1344(a)