NC Judge denies Clemson motion to stay case must continue in NC
Link:
Link
26 Replies
2y
If the contract cites NC as the adjudication state, then that is where the lawsuits need to be conducted. All parties agreed when they signed.
I am guessing all the doomsday pundits have never actually read a contract before.
** Edited by VT ChemE 1986 at 7/11/2024, 9:46:19 AM
(In response to this post by jdkhokie)
2y
adjudication state. Now the contract between the ACC and ESPN may have that information identified in the Miscellaneous section. Since they are separate documents and the schools technically did not sign the ACC-ESPN contract, the legal debate could be whether any of the terms and conditions in the ACC-ESPN contract applies to the GoR Agreement.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2y
not to define how and where legal challenges will be conducted. It is standard in every contract ever written. The only way it could be removed is if every school agreed to eliminating it.
As such, I do believe it is clearly defined in the contract and all the drama is just the lawyers trying to look like they are doing something for their clients.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
V
VTCALS72
2y
individual teams. I am sure the GOR is referenced as having one that the ESPN lawyers said was ok was a requirement. But I also think the media rights contract will clearly point out that ESPN has no responsibly to enforce the GOR if any individual school leaves. That would be totally on the ACC to enforce.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2y
and ESPN. The contract may or may not have even referenced the GoR like how the GoR references the contract between the ACC and ESPN as "ESPN Agreement."
Link:
ACC GoR
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
This is the only copy I’ve seen. Signed by UNC. No forum selection clause
** Edited by CrystalCoveHokie at 7/11/2024, 11:57:07 AM
Link:
Link
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2y
master agreement. The master agreement will have all of the terms around governing state law, dissolution, etc. Also, this document only shows the term of the GOR to be through June 30, 2027, which really makes it secondary to the challenges by FSU and Clemson. If their constraints really ended on that day, they wouldn't be spending the money to fight it.
They must be fighting terms in the master agreement. That is the primary issue.
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
Here is the extension to 2036…
At this point, I’d be very surprised if here was a forum selection clause that would apply. It also makes perfect sense not to have one….To get all the schools to sign on without the explicit threat of being hometowned.
Link:
Link
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2y
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2y
always headed towards federal court anyways.
(In response to this post by jdkhokie)
2y
First state to rule wins.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
V
VTCALS72
2y
If FSU and Clemson don't give up and settle for a reasonable amount (300-400 mil) Then IMHO it will morph into a class action suit if ESPN does not re up at the same $$$$. Reason, at that point there will be real $$$ damages
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
Since CU is not as obnoxious, let them out with a $1B exit fee.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
ahhh that big IF just like just about every Big 12 led podcast, but still if the GOR is upheld in federal court and ESPN says FSU leaving would reduce the payout to the remaining teams then why shouldn't the leaving teams pay to the remaining teams an amount equal to what the remaining schools would get if the entire league stayed together and ESPN continued til 2036?
Say FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA and Miami decided to leave and ESPN values the remaining 10 teams @ 10 mill less per team per year. so 10 teams losing 10 mil + ACC conference losses = at least 1 billion plus conference and legal fees would probably double that so 2 bill paid by 5 teams = 400 mil per departing team.
Wouldn't that be fair?
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
V
VTCALS72
2y
contract between the teams of the ACC as it stood on June 30. Whether it is FSU, Clemson, UNC, VT or anybody else it is the same. Anybody leaving should be required to compensate the remaining members so they suffer no harm through the term of the GOR.
I am sure that is not popular here but that is how I see it. VT just like FSU signed the GOR willingly and is over 1/3 of the way through it having reaped the benefits from it.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
is applicable, then I don't see why it couldn't end up in federal court. More specifically the interstate commerce piece of the Clause because at some point there will be a "transacting or transportation of products, services, or money across state borders."
Link:
Wickard v. Filburn
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
Nope….
Commerce Clause gives Congress the ability to regulate interstate commerce. It does not independently provide federal courts with a basis for jurisdiction.
Practically speaking there needs to be either diversity jurisdiction which requires all parties on one side of the action to be citizens of states different from those on the other side of the action. The ACC contends that it is a citizen of all states where the member schools are based. As far as I can tell CU and FSU have not challenged this. Further, there is a 30 day time to move the case to Federal court which is long gone.
There is also Federal Question jurisdiction when the action arises questions of Federal law. I’m not aware of any of the parties making this argument nor does it seem to apply.
There are lots of nuances but at this point, I don’t see how this ends up in federal court.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
I have a ruling in Nevada that Utah does not feel compelled to follow…..
So I’m not sure it’s that clear cut. But yes, it’s not in Federal court.
** Edited by CrystalCoveHokie at 7/10/2024, 11:27:17 PM
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
2y
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
Perhaps….But that seems to me to be more of a matter of discretion….
Than an application of Full Faith and Credit where there is no final judgment and the ruling does not meet the requirements of res judicata or collateral estoppel. I’m probably missing something. Is the SC judge compelled to stay the case or is it a matter of discretion? I can’t say for sure but my gut is that the SC court can allow the case to continue. Maybe I’m also a bit cynical…..
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
2y
(In response to this post by CrystalCoveHokie)
2y
(In response to this post by jdkhokie)