Clemson secures home-court advantage in case versus ACC

---

Clemson has secured home-court advantage.

The ongoing legal battle between the ACC and Clemson University added a new layer to the mix—this time, on Clemson’s home turf.

Clemson’s legal team secured a victory in Pickens County on Friday morning. The court ruled that Clemson had established a case for legal jurisdiction, keeping the case in South Carolina.

After a judge in North Carolina dismissed Clemson’s motion to stay (an action taken by a court to stop a legal proceeding) was denied, the roles of both parties took a role reversal.

This time, the ACC was the one arguing in front of a judge to stop the proceedings on the road outside of their battleground.

With the ruling in North Carolina having significant weight over what comes next, the ACC’s argument before Judge Perry H. Gravely was simple: control the chaos.

“In this specific jurisdiction context, there needs to be connectivity,” said the ACC on Friday morning. With a case in North Carolina being deemed to stay in Mecklenburg County, the counsel of the conference argued that the hearing in Pickens needed to be put on hold to refrain from two separate decisions.

"We don't want the spectacle of a judge in North Carolina and a judge in South Carolina saying two different things."

Much like the case in North Carolina, the case surrounded whether the state of South Carolina has any jurisdiction over the conference’s conduction of business.

One of the ACC’s most significant pieces of evidence to support its case was an email about the ACC and ESPN requesting that Clemson move its matchup with South Carolina to Black Friday.

Clemson, represented by Rush Smith, argued the ACC presenting the conference’s logo on the court, field, and other things was a form of doing business in the state.

Smith also mentioned how the Grant of Rights was signed, insinuating that the ACC strong-armed Clemson into a deal. The GOR was one of the central themes of Clemson’s legal team's demonstration of how the ACC conducts business within the state of South Carolina, arguing that this was grounds for jurisdiction.

Another item for argument was the ACC’s request for abatement, which was to simply “park” the trial in place until a substantial decision from the case being heard in North Carolina is reached.

Clemson’s legal team argued that the ACC’s request for abatement would only delay things further, likely dragging the North Carolina case to even slower lengths.

"They are asking the court to delay justice,” said Smith. “As long as this plays out, Clemson is prejudiced.”

That request for abatement was denied on top of Judge Gravely’s decision ruling in favor of Clemson’s case for jurisdiction.

When it came to Friday, Clemson mostly got what they came for, securing a small win in what will most likely be a long battle.

Clemson Athletic Director Graham Neff and the University’s legal team didn’t provide comment other than saying that the Judge’s ruling was more than enough for them.

The ACC released a brief statement following Friday’s ruling:

“We are pleased with the dismissal of Clemson’s sovereign immunity claim and are disappointed with the other two rulings. The ACC will continue to focus on protecting the best interests of our membership.”

Send Feedback to Grayson Mann: Email | Comment

Trending on TigerNet

Klubnik says he made the right decision in choosing Clemson

No. 4 Tigers hold on against Eagles

Clemson run-rules Runnin' Bulldogs