Tag: ACC Lawsuit

The latest developments in the Clemson’s lawsuits versus the ACC

It’s been an eventful week in Clemson’s lawsuits versus the ACC.

Clemson’s lawsuit against the ACC had ups and downs this week. The university’s motions to stay and dismiss were rejected by Judge Louis A. Bledsoe III in North Carolina. In contrast, Judge Perry H Gravely dismissed the ACC’s motion to dismiss in South Carolina.

Wednesday’s ruling in North Carolina came after hearing Clemson’s argument to dismiss based on “sovereign Immunity,” which prevents the government from being sued without its consent. Judge Bledsoe wrote that Clemson’s commercial ventures outside government functions waive its sovereign immunity protections, therefore, allowing the case to forward.

However, Clemson will partially get what they want. Although the motion to stay was denied, Clemson has appealed the court’s decision, triggering an “automatic stay.” The lawsuit will not move forward until a decision on the appeal is made.

That gives Clemson’s lawyers time to work on its case in South Carolina. The ACC argued that its business dealings in South Carolina weren’t substantial enough to justify the state’s jurisdiction. Clemson’s lawyer, Rush Smith, hit back, arguing that the ACC’s branding throughout all ACC-sponsored sporting events at Clemson and the league’s alleged coercion for Clemson to sign away its Grant of Rights was more than enough evidence that the ACC has been doing business in the state.

The ACC amended its motion to dismiss, asking to postpone the suit in South Carolina until Clemson’s appeal in North Carolina could be heard. That started a back-and-forth reminiscent of one you’d hear on the playground in elementary school.

Clemson stated that a decision in North Carolina could take a very long time, going as far as the Supreme Court before it’s made. In a desperate attempt to sway the judge, the ACC accused Clemson of only wanting a conflicting ruling to take back to North Carolina. Smith responded saying, “We filed first. If there is a conflict, it is not because we filed our lawsuit.”

Opinion- Why is UNC on the sidelines vs. the ACC?

Clemson and FSU would benefit from UNC joining their fight to leave the ACC. So why haven’t it?

Clemson and Florida State are waist-deep into their respective lawsuits against the Atlantic Coast Conference.

FSU just won a battle to keep its lawsuit in Florida, when Leon County Judge John C. Cooper denied the ACC’s request to dismiss the lawsuit on three counts. On the other hand, Clemson just took a small blow in the ACC’s countersuit in North Carolina.

Both schools are fighting tooth and nail in three states to win the right to move on from the ACC, and that raises a good question.

What is North Carolina doing?

When the ACC voted to bring a lawsuit against FSU in December, three members abstained from voting: Clemson, UNC, and Cal. Clemson makes sense because it brought its own lawsuit against the conference. And Cal makes sense because it’s a brand new team to the conference and probably chose to sit this out so as to not ruffle any feathers. But why would UNC expose itself in the vote against FSU only to sit on the sidelines?

Some lawyers will tell you that the best lawsuits are the ones that settle out of court. And to make the ACC settle, the universities leaving need to cause more damage to the ACC than it would benefit from a win in court. To do so means the battle against the ACC should be fought like a war of attrition. The longer the lawsuits proceed, the more mud is slung on the face of the conference in the eyes of the public and the more resources the ACC has to use to fight the lawsuit. If UNC joins the fight, it opens another front.

But maybe UNC doesn’t actually want out. It had a change in leadership at the same time the ACC voted to sue FSU. UNC’s Chancellor, Kevin M. Guskiewicz, left to be the President of Michigan State when the meeting happened, and it was reportedly interim Chancellor Lee H Roberts’ first day in his position. Like Cal, maybe Roberts was hedging his bets.

On the other hand, evidence points to the university wanting out. Just a couple of weeks ago, North Carolina’s General Assembly floated and then killed a Bill that would force UNC and NC State to play every year. In the ACC, that already happens. Why would North Carolina’s lawmakers feel threatened if UNC didn’t want to leave the ACC?

Rumors are that UNC’s Board of Trustees also wants out. One member, Dave Boliek, puts it clearly that he wants out,

“I am advocating for that,” he said. “That’s what we need to do. We need to do everything we can to get there. Or the alternative is the ACC is going to have to reconstruct itself. I think all options are on the table.”

But for the sake of argument, let’s say that’s the case. The University of North Carolina wants out of the ACC. Now, why isn’t it doing anything? Maybe it was waiting for the General Assembly’s Bill to run its course. If UNC had to bring little brother along after it left the ACC, the negotiation power of UNC would have severely diminished. Then UNC would have needed to amend its cost vs. risk assessment before it opened a can of worms against the ACC.

A more cynical view is that UNC wants to see what happens to FSU and Clemson first, which would be cowardice at the highest level. That would mean UNC signaled its intentions to fight alongside Clemson and FSU, but is now creeping slowly back into the bushes like Homer Simpson until the coast is clear.