Students Overwhelmingly Hungry from Undue Nullification of Granted Reward Yums (SOHUNGRY)
v.
LexisNexis Rewards
75 U.Va. 23 (2023)
Morse, C.J. delivered the opinion of the Court.
Plaintiffs are Students Overwhelmingly Hungry from Undue Nullification of Granted Reward Yums (SOHUNGRY), an informal coalition of 1Ls who filed a complaint, published in last week’s edition of the Virginia Law Weekly, on the present case. The defendant is LexisNexis (“Lexis”), a legal research services provider who has, from time to time, provided rewards points designed to encourage engagement with Lexis’s platform. These points are redeemable for a variety of items, including food, which is the focus of the present case. The plaintiffs allege that they relied upon the Lexis rewards to their detriment when the points became less valuable, leading them and the broader Law School to suffer various harms. Despite the manifold deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ basic understanding of contract theory, standing, and requested remedies, we will not dismiss this case as improvidently granted, though such a decision would be laudable and certainly simpler. Rather, because this case presents a question which cuts to the very heart of this Court’s jurisprudence, we will resolve the question on which we granted certiorari: Is there any situation in which 1Ls can win? We answer—emphatically and decisively—no, and dismiss this case with prejudice.[1]
I.
Before delving into the heart of today’s case, the cause of action and injuries by Plaintiffs bear some consideration. While the insufficiency of both the legal theories upon which Plaintiffs’ case rests and the paucity of actual injuries might itself be grounds for dismissal, we will dispatch this 1L jiggery-pokery before addressing the more pressing constitutional question.
A.
While they do not explicitly state as much, Plaintiffs’ claims appear to sound in contract. At first glance, the 1Ls’ claim is reminiscent of Leonard v. PepsiCo, Inc.[2] In both cases, the plaintiffs were uppity students (in this case, hungry 1Ls; in Leonard, a college student with too much time and unearned confidence on his hands), and they brought suit on a specious legal theory. But assuming that even the most distracted of 1Ls have read to the end of their casebooks’ Leonard opinion excerpt, this Court will politely decline to perform a full judicial smackdown a la Judge Kimba Wood.
The other legal theory which can plausibly be inferred from the complaint is that SOHUNGRY claims detrimental reliance on the availability and use of Lexis’s rewards points. It should surprise no one that SOHUNGRY came before this Court with that most famous hobby horse of excitable 1Ls everywhere: promissory estoppel. Unfortunately for Plaintiffs, this Court is not as indulgent of 1Ls’ legal fever dreams as their Contracts professor.[3] While it is not the basis for our decision today, it is worth our time to note that just because we are a Court of Petty Appeals, it does not mean these petty disputes can be brought without even the thinnest veneer of law.
B.
The plaintiffs’ alleged injuries are, to quote the most sarcastic Supreme Court Justice,[4] “so transparently false that professing to believe [them] demeans this institution.”[5] Which, for a Court that has upheld injunctions on Paw Review,[6] free fruit stands,[7] and any number of parking tickets, is really saying something. The primary injury that SOHUNGRY alleges is that they are now forced to pay for their own food, leaving them with the choice of going hungry or… paying for their own food. Like big kids. Even if Plaintiffs did not want to pay for food, the variety of other available sources of food renders their injuries speculative in the extreme. Plaintiffs could go to the Snack Office, the free food table, a journal office, or even the Law Weekly office, where free pizza is served (earned) every Monday at 5:30 p.m. While this Court is more than willing to entertain meritless claims, the flaccidity of this injury is beyond even our highly nebulous standards.
Yet Plaintiffs do not content themselves with sitting in a veritable ocean of free food and demanding that they be brought their food on a silver platter. In what must surely be the boldest mixture of sophistry and intimidation ever seen in this nation’s courts, SOHUNGRY suggests, in their pursuit of other free food, that the 2L and 3L classes would suffer comparatively less food. With all the feigned casualness of a mafioso complimenting your family’s store and noting, “What a shame it would be if anything happened to it,” Plaintiffs attempt to turn a threat into an injury. Beyond the obvious standing issue presented, this Court will not be intimidated by anyone, least of all 1Ls.
II.
We come now to the crux of this case, the question which we granted certiorari on: whether there is ever a situation in which 1Ls can win, falls within our oldest and most-esteemed body jurisprudence. This Court has held that 1Ls, inter alia, have no due process rights to cookies,[8] may not take the seats of 2Ls or 3Ls,[9] have no rights generally,[10]face a higher pleading standard because of the common-sense presumption that 1Ls will misapply the law,[11] may sue even God for an injunction but still must always lose,[12] and (relevant here) are enjoined from consuming anything more than 33.33% of available food at public events.[13] Against the overwhelming weight of our Court’s precedent, the plaintiffs armed themselves with scatterings of dicta and the plucky optimism that can only come from those who have not yet taken a Property final. First, Plaintiffs’ reliance upon Hungry People v. Law School Student Orgs[14] is misplaced. There, the Court held merely that the quality of food at events open to 2Ls and 3Ls must meet the standard appropriate for 2Ls and 3Ls, notwithstanding the (regrettably unavoidable) presence of 1Ls. This is a far cry from what Plaintiffs appear to urge: that this Court bootstrap 1Ls’ claims to the entirely hypothetical injuries of 2Ls and 3Ls. Needless to say, if this action had been brought by 2Ls, 3Ls, the administration, or even Darden students, we would be in a very different place.
Seemingly recognizing that the guns in their hands had turned to sausages, the 1Ls attempt to come for this Court with love.[15] The plaintiffs phrase the question presented so as to appeal to this Court’s abundant sympathy and soft spot for beleaguered law students. Try as they might, no amount of syntactic alchemy can change this illustrious Court’s 1L jurisprudence. Our traditions, history, and common sense dictate that we rule against the 1Ls, no matter the parties, facts, or pettiness of the action.
III.
The combination of specious legal theories, threats disguised as injuries, and—most damning of all—a plaintiff class composed entirely of 1Ls renders the plaintiffs’ complaint nothing short of ludicrous and thus it fails to pass even the most gullible standard of scrutiny. Today, we lay down a bright-line rule: 1Ls must always lose, no matter what. This obligation is undergirded by decades of CoPA jurisprudence, the best works of our brightest philosophers and ethicists, and the sagacity and wisdom of this Court. In so doing, we definitively overrule a stray piece of dicta from our decision in 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, suggesting that we “may rule for 1Ls.” We may not. As surely as states have sovereign immunity from suits in law or equity under the Eleventh Amendment, 1Ls have an inverse and equally powerful constraint crucial to the rule of law. Since 1Ls must always lose, they lose today. The case is dismissed with prejudice.
---
cpg9jy@virginia.edu
[1] Because of the unique ultra-pettiness of this case, the Court of Petty Appeals has deigned to exercise its original jurisdiction over this matter.
[2] 88 F. Supp. 2d 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
[3] Unless you had Professor Gulati, in which this judicial shellacking should be familiar from your cold calls.
[4] See Richard L. Hasen, Essay: The Most Sarcastic Justice 215 (U.C. Irvine Sch. L., Rsch. Paper No. 2015-11, 2015), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2550923.
[5] Erwin Chemerinsky, A Failure to Communicate, 2012 BYU L. Rev. 1705, 1715 (2012) (citations omitted).
[6] See Coughlin v. Virginia Animal Law Society, 912 U.Va. 16 (2019) (Coughlin II); Coughlin v. Virginia Animal Law Society, 90 U.Va. 403 (2017) (Coughlin I).
[7] City of Charlottesville v. Student Affairs, 74 U.Va 20 (2022).
[8] Class of 2021 v. Davies, 918 U.Va. 34 (2019).
[9] 1L Gunners and Her Majesty the Queen, 614 P.J.C.P.C. 913, 50 Am. P. Apps. 344 (2019).
[10] Snowman v. Student Admin., 73 U.Va. 15 (2021).
[11] 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va. 22 (2019).
[12] 1Ls v. God, 73 U.Va. 16 (2021).
[13] 1Ls v. 2Ls and 3Ls, 75 U.Va. 6 (2022).
[14] 75 U.Va. 12 (2022).
[15] See Succession, Episode 9, Season 3 (Dec. 12, 2021).