ACC claims Clemson has no jurisdiction

CLEMSON – A day after Clemson filed a motion to dismiss the Atlantic Coast Conference’s North Carolina lawsuit, the ACC did the same a day later.

On Monday, Clemson University filed a brief in Mecklenburg County, N.C., asking the court to support the motion to dismiss the ACC’s claim. Clemson should not be left out of the Grant of Rights (GOR) agreement or escape the league’s exit fee.

Last Tuesday, the ACC filed a motion in the Pickens County Courthouse to dismiss Clemson’s civil suit, saying the South Carolina court has no personal jurisdiction over the ACC and that there is ongoing litigation between the parties is pending in North Carolina court for the same claims.

In addition, the ACC dismissed the fifth count of the amended complaint on the grounds that the South Carolina Court lacks jurisdiction to determine whether the North Carolina Court has jurisdiction over the ACC’s claims against Clemson. .

In its motion Tuesday, the ACC takes its case to the state of Florida, claiming that the North Carolina court has already made important legal decisions regarding the law governing these agreements and the jurisdiction of the North Carolina courts.

“Clemson’s lawsuit in South Carolina appears designed to avoid these decisions whenever possible, and at the very least, to avoid those decisions if they are not favorable,” the motion said.

The ACC says Clemson has nothing to rely on in its claim because the revenue Clemson receives from the ACC is based on North Carolina law, which it agreed to when signing the GOR agreement.

“All members operate under the same grant of rights and the same Constitution and Bylaws of the ACC. These agreements are further governed by North Carolina law,” the motion states. “The ACC cannot function – – and no athletic conference could function – – if the same agreements (or the same clause in the agreements) were subject to different interpretations in ten jurisdictions (states). If this lawsuit were to proceed, it would lead to conflicting judgments or conclusions and raise the specter that one judgment leading to one set of conclusions would be valid only in one state, while another judgment leading to different conclusions would be valid elsewhere would be.

“The potential for conflicting judgments will not resolve the interpretive disputes raised in these lawsuits. Instead, it will only make them worse and create more uncertainty about whether these agreements are valid or not.”

A hearing on Clemson’s Motion to Dismiss is currently scheduled for July 2, 2024 in North Carolina Business Court.

“Clemson is thus asking this Court to do something it cannot do – rule on a question of North Carolina jurisdiction currently pending in the North Carolina courts and, in effect, order that North Carolina not has jurisdiction over Clemson,” the motion said.

Last Monday, Clemson asked the North Carolina Court to dismiss the ACC’s case, saying there is no issue to argue about. Clemson is not claiming that the GOR is unenforceable, only that it is unenforceable after it leaves the league.

Clemson is asking the court to tell it what is in the contract because the ACC and Clemson cannot agree. Therefore, Clemson filed a motion for declaratory judgment.

Last week, Clemson University alleged that the ACC made false claims about the scope of the (GOR) in an amendment to its original complaint on March 19. Last Friday, a Pickens County judge ordered the ACC to show Clemson University its ESPN agreements.

The school also seeks damages against the ACC as damages incurred to remedy the damage to Clemson’s intangible property rights caused by the ACC’s inaccurate statements regarding the GOR.

A limited number of signed footballs from Clemson’s 2022 class are still available. Get yours while supplies last! Visit Clemson Variety & Frame or buy online!