1Ls, 2Ls, 3Ls, et al.
v.
The Pavilion at North Grounds (aka "Pav")
76 U.Va 1 (2023)
Morse, C.J., delivers the unanimous opinion of the court.
I
David and Goliath. Erin Brockovich and PG&E. The 1Ls who won Dandelion playing against the NGSL team. History is replete with examples of the little guy struggling mightily against a significantly larger and more powerful foe. Thankfully, in our system of justice there has existed for some time now a means of pooling the resources of a mass of individuals in the hopes that by their consolidated action, they might obtain a measure of justice which would otherwise be inaccessible to them as individuals. It is a hallmark of our American system of justice, that class actions allow the little guy to win against a malicious foe who, by virtue of his size would otherwise evade justice. This is an honorable and commendable pursuit.
That is not the kind of case which we consider today.
Before this Court is a putative class action, brought by a group of plaintiffs comprised of the law students who reside at the Pavilion at North Grounds (hereinafter, “Pav”). The defendant, Pav, is a multi-story apartment building near UVA’s North Grounds. Pav is known to locals by various names, including “The Crown Jewel of Charlottesville,” “The Bellagio on Barracks,” and “The Modern Monticello.” The affection lavished upon this luxury, high-quality apartment complex is well-known and unquestionably justified. Notwithstanding the unimpeachably high character of Pav, the class asserted a variety of actions, sounding in tort, contract, antitrust, and various violations of the Geneva and Hague conventions. Pav challenged class certification, which the district court granted. We review that decision regarding class certification here today. For reasons we will discuss, we will reverse and deny class certification of this group of plainly ungrateful law students.
As background, we will briefly review plaintiffs’ threadbare allegations. The class alleges a litany of complaints against Pav. First, they allege egregious and continued rent increases with no perceptible change in their living accommodations.[1] Indeed, the class representatives have testified at great length that as rent prices have increased, the quality of the facilities has notably decreased. Purported examples from the complaint include the replacement of a “real pool table” in the lobby with “some Hasbro piece of junk made of plastic and cardboard,” the coffee machine in the lobby that never works, and that Pav has what can only be described as an “open-door policy” for thieves who snatch Amazon packages.
Second, plaintiffs charge that Pav has failed to provide even basic services which were stipulated in the lease. Of course, most of these “services” are related to Gen Z’s desire to be able to access TikTok and Uber Eats on demand, and receive luxuries which were unimaginable even ten years ago. For example, plaintiffs allege that the elevator is routinely unavailable and Pav has failed to provide “even the most minimal amount of consistent WiFi or air conditioning.” [2] The temperatures will cool in the near future, but of course these avocado-toast-eating youths cannot bear to wait a few weeks.
Third, and most galling of all, the class members point to a variety of minor aesthetic deficiencies which they lackadaisically label violations of the “warranty of habitability.”[3] The instances which the plaintiffs point to, from water damage, to fire alarms which blare in the middle of the night for no apparent reason, to the fact that the emergency maintenance line is not manned at nighttime, are at best, inconveniences. Try as they might, plaintiffs cannot through legal alchemy transform these petty complaints into actions bearing the force of law.
This Court, for one, is shocked at the betrayal—nay, the treason, which class members have engaged in by filing this brazen lawsuit. We will not stand for it, and for reasons we will discuss, this Court must deny class certification and grant Pav’s motion for sanctions.
II
Now we turn to the crux of this case: whether the class of plaintiffs meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. These requirements include, among others, sufficient numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of the class representative. The putative class does not meet these requirements and their motion for class certification must fail.
Pav presents several ironclad arguments in support of its position. First, it objects to the class representative, The Artist formerly known as ANG. Pav protests that it “thought we were friends.” Pav points to the common love of dry-cleaning their T-shirts, the New York Yankees, and ping pong as providing the initial spark in their friendship. Pav correctly notes that while being a Yankees fan does not disqualify you from being a friend, it does seriously bring into question ANG’s judgment to the extent that they cannot be considered of sound mind and body, let alone capable of serving as a class representative. We could not agree more.[4]
Second, Pav takes issue with the composition of the class. It correctly points out that, to the extent that this class of plaintiffs includes 1Ls, it must fail for this reason alone. As this Court has said time and time again, 1Ls always lose.[5] So they must here.
Third and finally, we must admit the general proposition that law students are nerds. And as we all learned in Property, landlords do not owe a warranty of habitability to nerds. We have previously recognized that gunners always lose.[6] Since nerds are, arguably a subvariant of gunners, the plaintiffs today must also lose.
III
Above the hallowed halls of this Law School is inscribed: “That those alone may be servants of the law who labor with learning, courage, and devotion to preserve liberty and promote justice.” Today we honor both the solemn mission of this Law School, and the prime directive of this court: to be as petty as possible. We are, and remain, Pav’s most humble and petty servants.
---
cpg9jy@virginia.edu
[1] The plaintiffs notably fail to point out that following a modest 50 percent increase in parking fees, that Pav installed a state-of-the-art, automated gate to the parking garage. As Pav says, “quality ain’t cheap.” We couldn’t agree more.
[2] In my day, we had neither. Kids these days.
[3] This charge is particularly galling to the Court. Air conditioning and freedom from significant water damage are all properly understood as AMENITIES. If you want these niceties, you need to specifically contract for them. And a little fungus is good for the soul, after all.
[4] Go Orioles.
[5] Students Overwhelmingly Hungry from Undue Nullification of Granted Reward Yums (SOHUNGRY) v. LexisNexis Rewards, 75 U.Va. 23 (2023). See also Class of 2021 v. Davies, 918 U.Va. 34 (2019) (holding that 1Ls have no due process rights to cookies); 1L Gunners And Her Majesty the Queen, 614 P.J.C.P.C. 913, 50 AM. P. APPS. 344 (2019) (holding that 1Ls may not take the seats of 2Ls or 3Ls); Snowman v. Student Admin., 73 U.Va. 15 (2021); (holding that 1Ls have no rights at all); 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va. 22 (2019) (holding that 1Ls face a higher pleading standard because of the common-sense presumption that 1Ls will misapply the law); 1Ls v. God, 73 U.Va. 16 (2021) (holding that 1Ls may sue God for an injunction but still must always lose); 1Ls v. 2Ls and 3Ls, 75 U.Va 6 (2022) (enjoining 1Ls from consuming more than 33.33% of available food at public events).
[6] 2L’s Who Are Way too Eager to Post on LinkedIn vs. Literally Everyone Else in the UVA Law School Community, 75 U.Va 2 (2022).