UVA Law Class of 2023, et al.,
v.
The Forum Hotel, the Darden Foundation, & UVA Law Com- munications
75 U.Va. 24 (2023)
Bninski, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.
Facts and Posture of the Case
This case comes to us on expedited review. The Class of 2023 et al., having suffered through the construction of the Forum Hotel and its incessant BEEPING, once again sought relief from the District Court of Petty Complaints against the Forum Hotel and its parent entity, the Darden Foundation.
The litigants filed suit on April 14, immediately after receiving a UVA Law email (“The Docket”) with the subject line, “Forum Hotel Will Offer UVA Law Community a Place to Gather.”[1] The perpetually aggrieved Class of 2023, now on its way out the door of the Law School, felt that the email was a personal affront.
This litany of alleged future benefits, coupled with the hearsay report that Darden students receive a 20 percent discount at the Forum Hotel bar, prompted the Class of 2023 to peer pressure other students and alumni into joining their suit. The Plaintiffs seek an injunction that requires equal protection under the law of student discounts, and also places a duty on Defendants to provide a pleasant garden tour for returning alumni once the “green” space behind the Forum Hotel has produced substantial greenery. The relief sought from UVA Law Communications is merely that COVID-era students and alumni be spared glowing accounts of pleasant experiences they did not experience, so as not to further embitter a truly grouchy class of plaintiffs.
We must note that the Darden Foundation has a history of disregarding this Court’s very serious decrees. It persisted in building the Forum Hotel (formerly known as “the new Inn at Darden”), despite being enjoined.[2] To add insult to injury, the following year, the Foundation disregarded this Court’s very reasonable requirement that it cough up money for extra safety personnel rather than relying on loud, frequent beeps.[3]
The UVA Law Communications division had no prior part in these disputes, and its petition to be dismissed from the suit is one of the issues before us today.
With graduation impending, we took this case on emergency review. While we embrace the concept of the “shadow docket” because it aligns closely with the petty and capricious tenets of this Court, we decline to hide behind the screen of unsigned opinions and vague majorities.
Analysis
Does this really need stating? In this Court, law students are absolutely a protected class, and equal discount protection is constitutionally mandated. The injunction on the Forum Hotel and the Darden Foundation is granted. Why did they even appeal? The Court has questions about the competence of the legal counsel who filed this overtly futile petition for review. Of course the Plaintiffs get a discount and a tour.
UVA Law Communications’ petition presents a more nuanced issue. Should it be obliged to avoid telling a swath of alumni about positive news? Granting the injunction would infringe on freedom of speech to a degree which, this Court concludes, would be unwarranted.
The record is not fully developed as to whether Plaintiffs would actually suffer irreparable injury[4]from emails about positive developments at the Law School.[5] However, we take judicial notice of the fact that students whose law school experiences were dominated by COVID are a fragile class. We also deem that UVA Law Communications is a respectable entity, unlike the Darden Foundation, and hence is unlikely to flagrantly abuse the rights and feelings of others. We therefore remand the question of the injunction on UVA Law Communications for further development.
Conclusion
The injunction on the Forum Hotel and the Darden Foundation is upheld; UVA Law Communications has the opportunity on remand to argue that the Plaintiffs are fully capable of getting over themselves.
Lake, C.J. Emerita, concurring.
Justice need not be a nebulous, poorly defined thing requiring whole classes dedicated to its different theories and facets, whatever the Law School might try to tell you. Justice can be something as simple as a discount at a bar that was clearly built with the expectation that law students and faculty would be popping in for a $17 glass of wine or two.
While this Court rarely bothers to oversee real discovery (we’re busy people, ok?), word of a Darden discount at Birch and Bloom was too juicy a rumor—and too good of an excuse to grab a drink with friends after class—not to pursue. A simple student ID is not enough; the very nice bartender interrogated for this investigation confirmed there is a specific email that Darden students must present to receive their discount. I therefore concur with the order enjoining Communications from sending further laudatory messages to students and alumni alike about the Forum Hotel and its affiliated gardens and bars until such time as this school gets its act together and secures a discount for law students.
The gargantuan (some would say tacky) scale of the Forum and its multiple bars were clearly built with law student, faculty, and alumni use in mind. The built-in captive audience Darden has by virtue of its dangerously accessible location is already fully in effect—from softball teams stumbling in from across the street after losing their playoff games at Copeley, to the several Deans this Justice bumped into during her outing. If the Forum really wants to become a beloved gathering place for the Law School community and engender some good will, extending the same discount Darden students receive to law students is the least they could do.
Brown, J., concurring.
As a gesture of good faith to my elders, I concur in the judgment placing an injunction on the Forum Hotel and the Darden Foundation on behalf of Plaintiffs. It is deeply prejudicial for the hotel, the Darden Foundation, and UVA Law Communications to laud the privileges of the new hotel to graduating 3Ls who have but four weeks to enjoy its splendors. A garden tour is the bare minimum of what is owed to these brave souls.
However, as a member of the UVA Law Class of 2025 who hopes to enjoy many more cocktails at the Forum Hotel during my remaining two years on North Grounds— in addition to the several I have already imbibed—I concur in Justice Bninski’s opinion with the utmost respect for the Kimpton Hotel chain.[6]Specifically, I write separately to provide context for just how wonderful the Forum Hotel’s lobby bar—Birch and Bloom—will be for students at the Law School, and to emphasize my sympathy for Plaintiffs’ inability to enjoy the premises for a healthy portion of their time in Charlottesville.
Birch and Bloom is fantastic. Before its opening a week or so ago, where was a law student to go if they wanted a drink within walking distance of the Law School? Say it with me: Sedona Taphouse. No shade to Sedona, which was home to many wonderful memories during my 1L fall, but the establishment is hardly anything special. The opening of the Forum Hotel changes the game. To have an espresso martini within a two-minute walk of my locker in Slaughter is revolutionary, albeit dangerous—and I cannot fathom the loss Plaintiffs must feel in having only a single calendar month to indulge in such joys before leaving to do bar prep, or whatever it is 3Ls do when they go to a farm upstate and “graduate.”
So, due to the crassness with which both the Darden Foundation and UVA Law Communications dangled the carrot of the Forum Hotel’s opening to our graduating 3Ls, I concur in the judgment. And I wholeheartedly endorse extending any Darden student discount, if one exists, to law students as a matter of equal protection, but not for me or anything because that would be super selfish.[7]
---
amb6ag@virginia.edu
dl9uh@virginia.edu
jwb4bb@virginia.edu
[1] The benefits of the Forum Hotel include, reportedly, “Rooms With a View”; “A Variety of Dining Options”; “Expansive Event Spaces”; “A Garden Walk That Builds Connections”; and “The Main Lobby, Plus a Cozy Spot.”
[2] Students v. Construction, 73 U.Va. 17 (2021).
[3] Literally All Law School People v. The Darden Foundation, 75 U.Va. 9 (2022).
[4] Apologies, Professor Laycock, for prolonging the zombie life of the irreparable injury rule.
[5] We note particularly that Plaintiffs failed to address their ability to unsubscribe from emails.
[6] Move over, Justice Thomas—there’s a new ethics scandal in town. I have no qualms weaponizing my lofty position as a Justice on this Court to serve as a corporate shill for this massive hotel conglomerate.
[7] Pls <3