UC Berkeley Lawsuit
 

Have you heard of the class action lawsuit against all the fraternities at UC Berkeley? Paul Ghysels, an angry neighbor, and his neighborhood association, are sick of the parties and the mess. Then again, they live next door to not one but two fraternity houses. This is a first-of-its-kind class action lawsuit, and I'm wondering what the potential legal ramifications are for Greek Rows across the country. Can anyone weigh in with some conjectures?

http://www.dailycal.org/article/1106...with_two_frate

The blog post linked above is a summary of the article, along with a brief discussion of the issue from my editorial standpoint.

I wanted the Greekchat community to "weigh in with conjectures" because this is a complex issue and I am not nearly qualified to discuss legal issues. The news articles on the topic are far from informative in this regard.

Forget I linked the blog, I'll ask it here instead: What, if any, are the potential ramifications for the Greek community nationwide if this lawsuit goes to court, and if Ghysels wins? And what are your thoughts on suing an entire fraternity system?

WG, what's to comment on? You have a suit based on some sort of nuisance theory, probably (we can only assume). The theory would be that the defendants' use of their properties interferes with the plaintiff's right to quiet enjoyment of his land.

Beyond that, there are going to be a lot of common law and statutory considerations which only a member of the California Bar is going to be able to intelligently discuss. I'm not even familiar with California's class action statute, and no one here is (not that I know of, anyhow) so even intelligent discussion of the procedural posture is out of the question.

In Oklahoma and in most places, winning these sorts of suits is an uphill battle.

It looks like the groups are settling one by one, so other than the fact that a nuisance suit has been brought somewhere and settled without a judge ever weighing in on the issues, this will be of zero precedential value.

Conjecture sucks because it really has no weight behind it. How can somebody give an informed opinion based upon articles that are "far from informative"? You're definitely right that the article you linked is weak on facts and thin on pertinent or useful information - my conjecture is that the writer is awful and has little to no future in professional journalism.

I have literally no idea what the basis for his lawsuit might be. Lawsuits generally require compensation, in the form of money, for some sort of damage. We don't know the basis for his damages claims, we don't know to what extent those claims apply to houses not adjacent to his property, and we don't even know if this guy is a whirling crackpot who brushes his teeth with pantyhose.

Similarly, if the lawsuit settles, there will be literally no further legal ramifications as no legal precedent will be set. There may be ramifications in the sense that other dudes may attempt similar suits, but again - we don't know the basis, whether factual or legal, for the lawsuit so how could we know whether to give a damn?

My thoughts on suing an entire greek system? I think suing "an entire fraternity system" is the easiest shit in the world - the process goes:

1 - Look up all the fraternities on ye ol' Information Superhighway.
2 - Write all of those names down in a legal document.
3 - Submit document.
4 - ?????
5 - Profit (or don't).

Could this spawn other, similar claims? It could, it also might not. Could this claim have merit? It could, it also might not. Could this fundamentally change the way Greek housing works? It could, it also might not. For all we know, the houses might be agreeing to settle with the guy because he's annoying, and because it's as easy as painting happy rainbow puppy unicorn murals on the walls then having parties off-campus. It's such a non-starter with the amount of information we have that I'm going to hit myself in the dick with a hammer for even writing this many words about it.

So, in summation, here's my conjecture: nobody will give you an informed legal opinion because that would be completely unethical and irresponsible. Additionally it would be impossible with what information is available. If you do not understand why these things are true, that is part of the problem, and I can make further conjecture as to what that means, but I'd prefer not to.

Dammit Kevin, I tilt off a thousand words and then by the time it gets posted, you've already covered everything. You suck.

WG, there's just not much there - which is why this felt like clickjacking to your blog from the jump (which is annoying, and really poor message board etiquette). If that wasn't the intent, then take the snark out, but the rest is true.

Thank you for the responses. As I alluded to, I have no legal background, hence my ignorance. In response to Ksig, of course links are awesome, hence the link in the signature. But we write a lot of posts that we don't chuck up on message boards. I put it up here because I want your input, and I linked the blog because that's where my own questions and musings were written. My apologies for the initial post. It won't happen again.

I also posted it here because I think that the dynamic between rowdy houses and neighbors is an interesting one, and regardless of the lack of concrete legal precedent, there are a lot of unaddressed questions. I'm only familiar with the Berkeley situation, so perhaps folks from other towns can help me get a better picture. Should the neighbor "put up or shut up?" Fraternities should be responsible for monitoring their behavior and being respectful of the community, but if they fail to do so, who is next in line? The tension between Greek houses and neighbors is not limited to Berkeley, so what methods, if any, have been successful in defusing this tension?

We have a UC Berkley UG on here IIRC. I wonder if he is willing to weigh in on how the Greek community is taking it.

Not quite everything. You still got to address this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1991491) How can somebody give an informed opinion based upon articles that are "far from informative"? You're definitely right that the article you linked is weak on facts and thin on pertinent or useful information - my conjecture is that the writer is awful and has little to no future in professional journalism.

The only thing I'd add it that the article is also weak on basic writing or proofreading skills. "Who's" instead of "whose"? "The Greek world" is a "they"? "An fascinating . . . nut to crack"?

Where did anyone say the link was awesome? Trust me: I won't be wasting any more time with your blog, and I think it's very bad form for you to have it linked in your sig.

If you're really concerned about future problems arising from this, then why call attention to it and spread the idea?

Statements like these are why I wish you were around a little more.

Utterly off topic, doesn't Berkeley have a sorority/fraternity housing shortage? Have they considered selling and moving further away from campus?

Why? Admitedly, I don't know much about UC Berkeley's housing situation, but on my campus there are groups that have owned their houses upwards of 50 years. Why uproot them and move them into a neighborhood that's not used to having it? It'd just open up the doors to more complaints, I would imagine.

I can't imagine this was the first lawsuit ever filed because of a noisy neighbor in California. Aside from the fact that this is at a well known school and fraternities are involved, it's not going to be a legally significant happening even if it makes its way to the California Supreme Court.

I know a LOT about Berkeley and the SF Bay Area, and the real estate there.

There's no place to move to.

And, in response to the OP:

con·jec·ture   
[kuhn-jek-cher]
noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing.
–noun
1.
the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2.
an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.

Dislike conjecture and speculation; I'm too much of a scientist. I do enjoy reading the legal GCers' comments, however.

I don't mean the fraternities, I mean the complainer guy!

The "complainer guy" won't be moving. His wife's family has owned the house for over 90 years. I feel for the guy in that he's been in the neighborhood for a long time and has apparently been trying to work with the city and the university to curb their behavior. If we take his accusations at face value, he's had breakins, bulletholes in his window, urination, threats, and all kinds of other mean nasty things done to him over the years. If it were simply an issue of moving out of the way of the bulldozer, I suspect he would've done so sooner.

More to the point is that, assuming his accusations are true (and I suspect most of them are), the fraternities have been unable to be even decent neighbors. Being loud on a Friday night in a college town is one thing, but it would take something severe for him to spend many thousands of dollars on surveillance equipment, and then to put together a lawsuit.

Also, thanks for proofreading my writing.