Court of Petty Appeals: Gym Rats of UVA Law v. UVA Rec

Gym Rats of the University of Virginia School of Law (GRUL)

v.

University of Virginia Department of Recreation (UVA Rec)

78 U.Va 19 (2026)

Lozada, J., delivers the opinion of the Court, in which Berklich, C.J., and Wu, Vanger, Kaufmann, Berklich, and Becker, J.J. join.

Lozada, J., delivers the opinion of the Court.

This action was initiated by a group of University of Virginia School of Law students (hereinafter Gym Rats of UVA Law) against the University of Virginia Department of Recreation (hereinafter UVA Rec) surrounding the excessive crowding of the North Grounds Recreation Center (hereinafter NGRC). According to the plaintiffs, the NGRC has experienced a substantial increase in traffic this year due to the closing of Memorial Gymnasium on Central Grounds forcing undergraduates to the NGRC, the revenge body aspirations of the 1Ls who were unfortunate enough to encounter Section J during the 1L Softball tournament, and the discovery that certain professors were frequently seen partaking in the amenities of the facility.  As a result, plaintiffs filed a petty complaint with this Court in a creatine-fueled stupor seeking relief from the hordes, in the hopes that the frequent use of NGRC facilities would allow them to be strong enough to resist the temptation to use a roller bag to carry their casebooks. This case comes to us on a cross-motion for summary judgment by both parties, and we view the facts in this light. 

Complaints regarding the undergraduate population of the University are nothing new to the School of Law. See Students v. Law Library, 73 UVA 18 (2021). However, this case does pose some novel questions that are worthy of our consideration. To begin, we have a notable group of individuals seeking to intervene against UVA Rec: the faculty members of the University of Virginia. Tired of being the target of jokes in the Libel Show, the faculty members wish to restrict access to the facility so that they can get their beach bods in peace. This unique case is covered by Petty Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which states that “so anyone is welcome to intervene, as long as they’re angry at one of the parties.” Finding this Rule to be clearly satisfied, we will deny their motion because I don’t want to have to think about it. See Petty Rule of Civil Procedure 1. For those worried about the precedent this may set, fret not, as I will task one of my clerks to make up a standing doctrine that allows me to do this as soon as our check from the Foundation clears for me to pay them. 

Additionally, it is important for us to acknowledge that this case comes before a Court that is grossly inexperienced with the NGRC as a concept, as our exercise routine consists simply of contemplating our own superiority and taking a healthy dose of GLP-1s. However, a court should rarely cede its interpretive authority merely due to a gap in specialized expertise, and we will not allow it to do so here. See Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). As such, we lean on our standard methodologies of adjudicating cases and leave any complaints to be addressed by the mechanisms of Petty Rule of Civil Procedure 6. We haven’t read it, though, and we don’t think you will either. 

These issues notwithstanding, we find ourselves primarily focused on the antitrust claim regarding the harms experienced by the Gym Rats of UVA Law. The plaintiffs contest that the undergraduates’ overcrowding has led to longer waiting times on the various gym equipment and amenities of the NGRC, which is sourced from the illegal restriction on output caused by the closure of Memorial Gymnasium. It is alleged that this has meaningfully interfered with the ability of the plaintiffs to enjoy the benefits that come from exercise, as UVA Rec maintains control over a substantial portion of the market for fitness activities in the Charlottesville area. Furthermore, plaintiffs allege that the market substitutes do not provide a comparable service to that of UVA Rec. Given the alternatives offered by the defense, this theory does have some support. As is well-documented, the North Grounds Track Club and other Run Clubs are simply a covert vehicle to find people to date.  Likewise, the Orange Theory and Solidcores of the world are also simply a covert vehicle to find people to date, but with the addition of an income filter to make sure that you never encounter a public interest student. And lastly, the North Grounds Softball League is, like those above, a covert vehicle to find people to date, but with the addition of a filter to make sure that you only date people who were in a B-tier fraternity or sorority in college. As such, we find that the actions of UVA Rec, when combined with the uniquely concentrated aspects of the Charlottesville exercise market, pose an environment ripe for exploitation by powerful market actors.

Turning to whether the restriction on output constitutes an illegal violation, we normally would turn to a long and comprehensive analysis under the various court precedents interpreting the Sherman Act of 1890. However, just like many other Courts across this great land of ours, we will instead choose to ignore any of the actual history or text behind the Act and instead turn to the words of a random dude from the 1970s for an easy copout. While many Courts in this situation may be inclined to enshrine the words of Robert Bork’s Antitrust Paradox, we instead choose to look to the immortal words of George Carlin: “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” Applying this rule to the case before us, we find a clear outcome: plaintiffs and defendants, by being large groups, are both clearly composed of stupid people. As such, we feel compelled to deny both parties’ motions for summary judgement, give ourselves a congratulatory high-five for finishing this in under 1000 words, and stay proceedings pending the resolution of a question critical to the outcome of this case: whether plaintiffs are truly intent on using the NGRC, or are simply attempting to have a glow up to try to get one more shot with their 1L sectionmate. 

It is so ordered.