The Bottom Line of the Case<\/h3>\n
The hearing, briefs, and motions are a fight over jurisdiction. To this point, it is about whether the case should be heard in Charlotte, (where the ACC is headquartered), or left to a South Carolina court, within the jurisdiction of Clemson University. Like Florida State’s previous efforts, the school\u2019s motion to dismiss was based on sovereign immunity and personal jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
This case, however, with the ACC as the plaintiff, is for breach of contract, alleged by the conference against the school. It is not the primary case to decide if Clemson can leave the ACC and abandon the Grant of Rights while maintaining its media rights in another conference. But success in a breach of contract case could be a tool to stop Clemson from being able to leave.<\/p>\n
The Ruling<\/h3>\n
Judge Bledsoe\u2019s 53-page ruling recites much of the ACC\u2019s purpose for creating the Grant of Rights, as well as the 2016 extension, which took the agreement from 2027 to 2036.<\/p>\n
He pointed out that legal action was already taken by Florida State against the ACC, and by the conference against the school. Further, he reiterated what was relayed in last week\u2019s hearing about Clemson and the ACC negotiating at the beginning of 2024.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhile these parallel actions were pending, the ACC alleges that \u2018Clemson indicated a desire to work with the Conference regarding its own membership in the Conference and requested assurances of confidentiality and protections that the ACC would not file suit against it.\u2019 The ACC avers that it \u2018agreed to work with Clemson, seeking a business solution \u00a0being documented, and without provocation by the ACC,\u2019 Clemson initiated litigation against the ACC on 19 March 2024 by filing suit in Pickens County, South Carolina.\u201d<\/p>\n
At the hearing, attorneys for Clemson pointed out that they were under no legal obligation to continue the talks if they felt they were not fruitful. The ACC filed its breach of contract lawsuit against Clemson the day after the Pickens County filing.<\/p>\n
The FSU Factor in the Ruling<\/h3>\n
The judge wrote that because the conference is governed by the Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act, \u201cIt permits the ACC, as a North Carolina unincorporated nonprofit association, and Clemson, as a Member of the ACC to bring suit against each other.\u201d<\/p>\n
Bledsoe further explained in the written order that this ruling is consistent with what he ruled in Florida State\u2019s motion to dismiss the ACC lawsuit against the school. \u201cAs this Court recently explained in the FSU Order, the appropriate Rule for consideration of a motion to dismiss on the grounds of sovereign immunity has been somewhat unsettled in North Carolina.\u201d<\/p>\n
Potential Appeal<\/h3>\n
Because the North Carolina cases, with the ACC as the plaintiff, are being heard in Complex Business Court, North Carolina law allows an applicant to skip the rest of the appellate process and go straight to the state supreme court. After losing its motion last month, Florida State has made it clear it intends to do that. Clemson\u2019s legal counsel has yet to indicate its next move.<\/p>\n
The docket calendar for the North Carolina Supreme Court is such that it is unlikely either appeal would be heard before next Spring. If Clemson does opt to appeal to the state supreme court, it likely will file a motion with Judge Bledsoe\u2019s court to cease all further proceedings in the case pending the appellate outcome. Florida State successfully filed the same motion last month, essentially bringing to a halt all elements of that case for the time being.<\/p>\n
Clemson Gets Some Wins<\/h3>\n
The ruling was not a total loss for Clemson. The judge granted Clemson\u2019s motion to dismiss the ACC\u2019s request for relief. He did so because the ACC\u2019s claim is based on the Grant of Rights agreements being based on, \u201cValid and binding contracts.\u201d The judge said no judicial decision on the validity of the contracts would be forthcoming in this ruling. But he dismissed the ACC claim without prejudice, meaning they can re-file it.<\/p>\n
Judge Bledsoe also granted Clemson\u2019s motion to dismiss the claim by the ACC that it was owed relief due to an alleged breach of fiduciary responsibility by the school toward the conference. That was dismissed with prejudice, meaning the ACC cannot resubmit that complaint.<\/p>\n
What’s Next<\/h3>\n
Clemson has 30 days to file, with Judge Bledsoe\u2019s court, a notice of intent to appeal his ruling.<\/p>\n
![\"Clemson\u2019s](\"https:\/\/lastwordonsports.com\/collegefootball\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2024\/06\/448154155_425482603650403_1186797699094397611_n-300x169.jpg\")
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"