A judge on Wednesday denied Clemson’s request to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Atlantic Coast Conference, which was initiated after Clemson challenged the conference’s bylaws in court.
The legal dispute began when Clemson sought in March to free itself from the ACC’s grant of rights and a potential $140 million exit fee if the university were to leave the conference. Clemson filed a lawsuit in South Carolina aiming to invalidate the grant of rights and avoid the exit fee.
In response, the ACC promptly countersued the following day.
Clemson sought to have the ACC’s countersuit dismissed, or at least delayed (stayed), but the judge ruled that only a North Carolina court has jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the bylaws.
Clemson argued against the jurisdiction of the North Carolina court, asserting that it had not waived sovereign immunity and thus could not be sued there. However, the court disagreed. North Carolina Chief Business Court Judge Louis A. Bledsoe III pointed to Clemson’s ongoing involvement in league meetings and administration activities within North Carolina, including competitions, as grounds for waiving immunity.
Judge Bledsoe did grant Clemson’s motion to dismiss the ACC’s claims for breach of contract and the declaration of the grant of rights as valid and binding contracts. The ruling noted that Clemson did not dispute the enforceability of these contracts, only their scope.
The ACC expressed satisfaction with the ruling in a statement, emphasizing its longstanding position that North Carolina courts are appropriate for interpreting and enforcing agreements.
“This decision acknowledges the ACC’s consistent stance that the 2013 and 2016 Grant of Rights agreements are valid and enforceable, voluntarily entered into by each of our members with full understanding of their terms,” the statement affirmed.
The ACC has similarly sued Florida State on comparable grounds. Judge Bledsoe has stayed that lawsuit pending Florida State’s appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court, following his earlier ruling that denied the university’s motion to dismiss the case.