S.C. judge makes ruling on Clemson's case versus ACC |
David Hood
-
- Friday, July 12 2024
PICKENS, South Carolina - A Pickens County Circuit Court judge denied the request of the Atlantic Coast Conference to abate, or stay, Clemson’s lawsuit against the conference in the state of South Carolina.
The league asked judge Perry H. Gravely to abate, or in the words of ACC counsel Jim Cooney, “park to the side” the South Carolina case where Clemson has sued the conference. Gravely said the ACC didn’t provide enough proof that the lawsuit shouldn’t continue in South Carolina but did dismiss a “sovereign immunity” claim by Clemson that the lawsuit should only be heard in South Carolina, meaning the case will continue to be heard in North Carolina. In North Carolina, Clemson has appealed the decision by Judge Louis Bledsoe that the case should continue in the North Carolina courts. That will now move to the appellate courts, and that was part of Clemson’s argument that no one knows a timeline for that to be heard. Clemson lawyer Rush Smith said, “We don’t know how long justice will be delayed….I mean, denied.” What does it all mean? This means that the lawsuit and Clemson’s complaint will continue in the normal course of litigation in South Carolina (while Clemson will also look to its appeal in North Carolina). The ACC released the following statement shortly after the rulings: “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.” More to come. "They are asking the court to delay justice." #Clemson is now speaking in rebuttal of the ACC's argument for abatement. https://t.co/ueVVCvcqEN The ACC argues that #Clemson's implication of being "coerced" into signing the contract is misplaced. https://t.co/1q0hZVEU86 #Clemson argues that the ACC performs commercial activities in South Carolina, which they believe strengthens its argument of jurisdiction. https://t.co/z3YaCVbrXS #Clemson references the ESPN agreements, citing the GOR is modified by that specific agreement. The ACC has to fulfill its obligations under the ESPN contract. https://t.co/jf7sOVHNQO "It is simply a closed question about whether there is jurisdiction in South Carolina." #Clemson is on the move within their argument. https://t.co/hTZoSsTnwE "Every time the GOR was presented to #Clemson, the ACC said we need you to sign this, or ESPN won't go for the contract." https://t.co/6r47ZRkA4f Clemson is now speaking. "This is important for the town, the state, and the county for #Clemson to thrive." https://t.co/IlUh8Zgt56 The ACC uses President Clement's words in its argument. "The ACC is a great conference. This increases the national exposure for additional revenue and our athletes. It stabilizes the conference long term." https://t.co/BHIT3TgEoX The fundamental question the ACC argues is whether the jurisdiction #Clemson claims to have is irrelevant. https://t.co/O0CtTPi2At Rush Smith says Clemson can't afford to wait for this to play out, saying "as long as this plays out Clemson is prejudiced." He mentions the school can't wait on NC appellate courts. Smith says there are no precedents or cases where it says a court should rule a certain way because another court might rule in another way. ACC is arguing Res judicata, which is raised when a party thinks that a particular claim was already, or could have been, litigated and therefore, should not be litigated again. They want this judge to "park" this lawsuit until North Carolina's Supreme Court makes a decision on… Should be interesting. This is my last photo... Not allowed once the proceedings begin. pic.twitter.com/wF6HH48FqA
Upgrade Your Experience!
Unlock premium boards and exclusive features (e.g. ad-free) by upgrading your account today.
Upgrade Now!
