ACC vs. Maryland: And some reasons expectation is a win

[Crusty]

I'm an engineer, not attorney, but based on information above could Maryland push for a different venue? Don't see how they can get a fair court case.

Some of the attorneys should chime in. Mine always tell me to file suit first to establish venue if you have solid nexus and then have the other guy try to get the venue changed, which can be very difficult.

Since the case the ACC filed in NC is a request for a declaratory judgment under NC law it would probably be near impossible for MD to get a NC judge to grant it a change in venue. What are the grounds? MD agreed to NC law and venue when it accepted the ACC by-laws.

That is why they sued on other grounds in MD. Even if they managed to get the case moved to US Court they would still be in NC using NC law. I would have thought that if they had any chance to have it moved to US Court it would have been done by now.

 

[HtownOrange]

I'm an engineer, not attorney, but based on information above could Maryland push for a different venue? Don't see how they can get a fair court case.

Often the agreement will spell out where any disputes will be heard and many agreements will also specify choice of law. Ex: Venue may be NC while applying NY law. If the ACC agreement has such clauses, it is most likely it specifies NC for venue.

For Maryland to win a removal to a Maryland court would be almost miraculous. It's too complicated to explain here but there may be some hearings, but probably to no avail. Ex: (If I recall correctly) WVU filed against the Big East but really failed overall. They knew they would not win in the end so WVU settled. That was with $20MM on the line, so if it was possible to win, they would likely have kept fighting.

Maryland's best options are to pursue a fraud claim (which would probably fail, possibly on its own face value) or the punitive nature and thus they cannot get a fair hearing. However, that would NOT preclude eliminating NC judges nor would it negate the choice of law if mentioned in the agreement, nor would it be moved to Maryland as teh ACC would reject that (or fight it).

 

[HtownOrange]

Some of the attorneys should chime in. Mine always tell me to file suit first to establish venue if you have solid nexus and then have the other guy try to get the venue changed, which can be very difficult.

Since the case the ACC filed in NC is a request for a declaratory judgment under NC law it would probably be near impossible for MD to get a NC judge to grant it a change in venue. What are the grounds? MD agreed to NC law and venue when it accepted the ACC by-laws.

That is why they sued on other grounds in MD. Even if they managed to get the case moved to US Court they would still be in NC using NC law. I would have thought that if they had any chance to have it moved to US Court it would have been done by now.

You are probably correct. However, as you clearly point out, they would still be under NC law.

They wanted the Maryland State courts for any possible advantage. This does not remove their burden to prove the ACC agreement is invalid. If they fail this step, the Maryland court would have to dismiss their case/rule for the ACC because the validated agreement states NC venue/law. Thus, the Terps only hope for a ruling completely in their favor is in the Maryland state courts. Even if the agreement is validated but he fee is punitive, Maryland is subject to the remaining terms of the ACC agreement, or NC courts.

 

[oldpinepoint]

You guys are smart

 

[TheOrangeBuddha]

Wow.

You have had bad experiences with "judges"

You seem very skeptical of them.

I work in the business - I have for nearly 30 years - and I don't feel as jaded.

My experience is that judges or juries generally do the right thing and generally follow the law.

Having litigated cases all over the country for going on 20 years, I am much closer to Crusty's viewpoint on judges than yours OrangePA. I've seen all kinds of ridiculous things in both the alleged judicial hell holes in the country as well as the great areas, with allegedly hard working intelligent judiciary. Call me jaded or call me a realist.

 

[rocklloyd]

Often the agreement will spell out where any disputes will be heard and many agreements will also specify choice of law. Ex: Venue may be NC while applying NY law. If the ACC agreement has such clauses, it is most likely it specifies NC for venue.

For Maryland to win a removal to a Maryland court would be almost miraculous. It's too complicated to explain here but there may be some hearings, but probably to no avail. Ex: (If I recall correctly) WVU filed against the Big East but really failed overall. They knew they would not win in the end so WVU settled. That was with $20MM on the line, so if it was possible to win, they would likely have kept fighting.

Maryland's best options are to pursue a fraud claim (which would probably fail, possibly on its own face value) or the punitive nature and thus they cannot get a fair hearing. However, that would NOT preclude eliminating NC judges nor would it negate the choice of law if mentioned in the agreement, nor would it be moved to Maryland as teh ACC would reject that (or fight it).

Excellent response. Thank you. If you ever want to know why your commercial air conditioner is not working, don't hesitate to ask.

 

[HtownOrange]

Excellent response. Thank you. If you ever want to know why your commercial air conditioner is not working, don't hesitate to ask.

Thanks. You're on (however, I must remind you, I live in Texas, you may regret this statement later...)

 

[Crusty]

You are probably correct. However, as you clearly point out, they would still be under NC law.

They wanted the Maryland State courts for any possible advantage. This does not remove their burden to prove the ACC agreement is invalid. If they fail this step, the Maryland court would have to dismiss their case/rule for the ACC because the validated agreement states NC venue/law. Thus, the Terps only hope for a ruling completely in their favor is in the Maryland state courts. Even if the agreement is validated but he fee is punitive, Maryland is subject to the remaining terms of the ACC agreement, or NC courts.

Winning in court is one thing - collecting is quite another. NC goes to MD to try and collect an NC judgment and is blocked by the MD court for whatever reason - NC cannot collect the judgment. I suppose that is why NC is withholding money from MD - in the end the leverage may be where the money is.

It would be interesting if NC won the NC suit and MD won the MD suit. What then? Both state would try to transcribe the judgments to the other state - good luck with that.

Could be quite a mess.

 

[TexanMark]

I'm not a lawyer but: isn't one state going to try it? I thought NC and MD can't try the same suit at the same time?

 

[bnoro]

I'm not a lawyer but: isn't one state going to try it? I thought NC and MD can't try the same suit at the same time?

I did stay at a holiday inn last night...

 

[Crusty]

I'm not a lawyer but: isn't one state going to try it? I thought NC and MD can't try the same suit at the same time?

Different suits.

 

[HtownOrange]

Winning in court is one thing - collecting is quite another. NC goes to MD to try and collect an NC judgment and is blocked by the MD court for whatever reason - NC cannot collect the judgment. I suppose that is why NC is withholding money from MD - in the end the leverage may be where the money is.

It would be interesting if NC won the NC suit and MD won the MD suit. What then? Both state would try to transcribe the judgments to the other state - good luck with that.

Could be quite a mess.

That's is exactly why the ACC is withholding payments. The Big East is withholding payments to Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville and Rutgers, at least up to the amount owed by each school to the conference. This is probably included as a clause in the agreement.

As for collecting any unpaid amounts, if the State of Maryland interfered with an assumed ACC favorable decision by the NC courts, there may be grounds for enforcement by the SCOTUS, but I have never dealt in this arena. Usually, courts uphold other courts' decisions, unless it is on appeal, meaning the Maryland court would allow the ACC to collect but within whatever boundaries Maryland has for debt collections.

However, perception and reality would probably force and/or shame the state and/or the school into making UM pay the money. Maryland would make payment arrangements and pay the balance. Plus, the ACC could strike back in athletic manners, via not scheduling lacrosse, hoops, other Olympic sports. Lacrosse and hoops would cost Maryland a chunk of change, not being able to play UV, Syracuse, Duke and UNC on a regular basis could effectively kill their program. Not playing the ACC schools in hoops would likely cause lower attendance and greater costs in travel.

All of that leads to the easy way out, negotiations. I still believe that Maryland settles for north of 2X, a little south of 3X (to save face), gets game guarantees in all sports, at least for a few years (I would not be opposed to keeping them in lacrosse as the B1G does not have a league, to my knowledge), gets to pay monies owed over several years (at least 3-5, maybe more due to their athletic department debt) and everyone smiles and says wonderful things about each other.

 

[HtownOrange]

I did stay at a holiday inn last night...

YOU SHOULD BE ANSWERING ALL THE QUESTIONS!

 

[HtownOrange]

I'm not a lawyer but: isn't one state going to try it? I thought NC and MD can't try the same suit at the same time?

Crusty is right, they are technically, two suits. However, they stem from the same set of facts and the Maryland court should - I said should - deny hearing the matter, as long as the ACC seeks dismissal and proves that a case with the same facts has been filed in a competent court prior to the Maryland filing.

If I recall, the WV courts made a ruling for WVU, in spite of the Big East first filing against WVU. So, what I said above is what theoretically should happen, but doesn't always happen. If the matter does not get worked out between the states' courts, then the matter would go to the SCOTUS. I don't thing either State Supreme Court would allow it to go that far, neither wants to be spanked by the big boys.

 

[oldpinepoint]

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_pWZMMfSW_FcmpicnAyY3VtdHM/edit?pli=1

 

[oldpinepoint]

I think that is the complaint

 

[HtownOrange]

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_pWZMMfSW_FcmpicnAyY3VtdHM/edit?pli=1

I just read the complaint. It is unimpressive and is less than honest. UM and other plaintiffs are coming to the court with soiled hands. Glaring failures in the complaint include:

- Failure to acknowledge UM fully agreed with the Exit fee of 1.25X the annual share
- Seeking treble damages on the full amount (per above, this amounts to the same fraud/interference that UM is claiming)
- Failing to acknowledge that UM fully agreed to withholding payments of departing schools under the previous agreement
- Complaining of the withholding of payments by the ACC while failing to acknowledge that they previously agreed to the 1.25X exit fee
- The adoption of the new amendment may have been proper if the amendment included a clause making it effective immediately
- Denying that Maryland has provided official notice to the ACC of their withdrawal, by announcing they are leaving the ACC and joining the B1G, they have mode constructive notice and that will suffice, even if a court held that UM did not provide official notice (by the way, they fail to define official notice and the ACC bylaws require notice on or before August 15 for withdrawal effective July 1, the following year)
- Issues regarding keeping UM from meetings is foolish in that no conference allows a leaving team to attend meetings other than scheduling meetings

Further, they freely open the ACC to pursue potential bad faith dealing. If they or the B1G had any contact prior to the vote, their whole complaint is tainted for bad faith (double dealing). There are other issues, but this is sufficient to warrant the court dismissing the claims and allowing he NC courts to hear the case.
This is off the top of my head.

Additionally, I think there may be part of the overall agreement missing. There are several boiler-plate clauses that I did not see in my first pass over the agreement.

 

[Crusty]

Thanks HTown.