NC judge denies Clemson's motion to stay, says case must continue in North Carolina (2024)

The North Carolina judge who heard Clemson’s motion to dismiss/stay the ACC’s lawsuit against the university released his judgment Wednesday, and he says the case needs to continue in the state of North Carolina.

This is developing, and we will continue to update as we find out more.

However, a quick summary:

Last week, the ACC and Clemson appeared in Mecklenburg County Court as the university seeks to dismiss (or stay - stay is an action taken by a court to stop a legal proceeding or the actions of a party) the suit in North Carolina courts.

The Friday hearing in Pickens is the same thing, but on the opposite side of the coin – Clemson was the first of the parties to take legal action when it sued the ACC in Pickens County back in March, challenging the conference’s “grant of rights” and large exit fee required of any school hoping to leave the ACC for another conference. The ACC is asking Pickens County Judge Perry H. Gravely to dismiss/stay the case in its favor.

Obviously, both sides want the case to be heard in their home venue. A decision for the league by Gravely would be a win for the ACC, and a decision for Clemson in Charlotte would be a huge win for the university.

The league quickly filed suit in North Carolina in Mecklenburg County, where the ACC headquarters are located, and asked a court to declare its grant of rights and exit fee were “valid and enforceable” while seeking damages from Clemson for breaching that GOR in the case ACC vs. Clemson.

The parties argued their cases in North Carolina last week, and they were heard by North Carolina Business Court Chief Judge Louis A. Bledsoe III. Bledsoe committed to issuing a ruling by the time the two parties meet on Friday, and he released his findings Wednesday. Bledsoe said the case will continue to be heard in the state of North Carolina.

Bledsoe denied the motion to stay, saying the decision emphasized the need for a consistent and uniform interpretation of the Grant of Rights Agreements and the ACC’s Constitution and Bylaws. The Court noted that only a North Carolina court has jurisdiction over all involved parties (FSU, Clemson, and the ACC) and can thus provide binding clarity.

“The only court that has jurisdiction over FSU, Clemson, and the ACC — and thus the only court that can assure a consistent, uniform interpretation of the Grant of Rights Agreements and the ACC’s Constitution and Bylaws, the determinations at the core of the Pending Actions — is a North Carolina court,” Bledsoe wrote in his 53-page opinion. “Only a North Carolina court, most likely in a single consolidated action in North Carolina, can render consistent, uniform determinations binding the ACC, FSU, and Clemson concerning the documents that are at issue in all four Pending Actions.”

Bledsoe highlighted the fact North Carolina is the appropriate venue for resolving these issues due to the risk of conflicting rulings from different state courts, which could cause procedural chaos. Bledsoe wrote that even though Clemson filed first, it doesn’t allow for a deference in this case and should be heard in North Carolina, saying it doesn’t work a substantial injustice on Clemson.

The court also dismissed multiple ACC claims that Clemson breached its duties related to league contracts and its constitution, as well as acting in good faith. The ACC’s claim that Clemson owes fiduciary responsibilities to the league was also dismissed.

The ACC released the following statement:

“We are pleased with today’s ruling as it confirms that only a North Carolina court can render a decision that would apply to both Clemson and Florida State. The opinion also reinforces what the ACC has clearly articulated from day one - the North Carolina courts are the proper place to enforce and interpret the ACC’s agreements."

“As the court found, Clemson does not challenge whether the ACC Grant of Rights is valid or enforceable. This recognizes the ACC’s consistent position that the 2013 and 2016 Grant of Rights are valid and enforceable agreements that each of our members entered into voluntarily, with full knowledge of their terms.”