NC Court of Appeals rejects Maryland's Motion to Dismiss 52 million lawsuit | Syracusefan.com

NC Court of Appeals rejects Maryland's Motion to Dismiss 52 million lawsuit

A

Alsacs

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
63,219
Like
90,071
Alsacs said:
http://www.timesdispatch.com/sports/college/acc/co urt-rejects-maryland-s-bid-to-have-million-acc-exi t/article_4e0a63ba-512b-11e3-9182-001a4bcf6878.html


Maryland is going to lose this lawsuit IMO the more I am reading. The only argument Maryland could have won on was if they argued the ACC didn't follow proper procedure in amending the exit fee from 20 million to 52 million it appears their argument is more punitive and I don't think that will work in a NC court.
Expand...

So do you think they try and walk down the street in Greensboro to the Supreme Court?
I wonder if UMD has the cash to pay the fine... even if negotiated down.
 
Alsacs said:
http://www.timesdispatch.com/sports/college/acc/co urt-rejects-maryland-s-bid-to-have-million-acc-exi t/article_4e0a63ba-512b-11e3-9182-001a4bcf6878.html


Maryland is going to lose this lawsuit IMO the more I am reading. The only argument Maryland could have won on was if they argued the ACC didn't follow proper procedure in amending the exit fee from 20 million to 52 million it appears their argument is more punitive and I don't think that will work in a NC court.
Expand...
4w5d5.jpg
 
CuseLegacy said:
So do you think they try and walk down the street in Greensboro to the Supreme Court?
I wonder if UMD has the cash to pay the fine... even if negotiated down.
Expand...
IMO, Maryland HAS TO MOVE THIS CASE to Federal Court in Greensboro now that it will be decided in NC. Maryland can let the case go thru in NC State Court and lose and then hope the MD State courts take the case and give them a better home venue, because then the ACC wouldn't need to honor the case if it is decided in a NC court first as the MD court honestly wouldn't have any legs to stand on. This decision means Maryland doesn't have an automatic appeal to the NC State Supreme Court which means it would take more time if they wanted to appeal this decision.

Maryland needs to either try to settle this number down if the ACC will listen which honestly I don't think they 1. want to settle or 2. have any reason to settle or move the case to Federal Court and try the case on the merits. The legal argument Maryland is using isn't going to work under the law IMO as I said the best legal argument would have been a due process argument that the ACC didn't follow its own by-laws to amend the exit fee instead Maryland is making the argument the exit fee is punitive which I don't think a court will agree with because of the revenue Maryland is claiming they will receive from the B1G to justify their own decision to leave.
 
Last edited:
Alsacs said:
IMO, Maryland HAS TO MOVE THIS CASE to Federal Court in Greensboro now that it will be decided in NC. Maryland can let the case go thru in NC State Court and lose and then hope the MD State courts take the case and give them a better home venue, because then the ACC wouldn't need to honor the case if it is decided in a NC court first as the MD court honestly wouldn't have any legs to stand on. This decision means Maryland doesn't have an automatic appeal to the NC State Supreme Court which means it would take more time if they wanted to appeal this decision.

Maryland needs to either try to settle this number down if the ACC will listen which honestly I don't think they 1. want to settle or 2. have any reason to settle or move the case to Federal Court and try the case on the merits. The legal argument Maryland is using isn't going to work under the law IMO as I said the best legal argument would have been a due process argument that the ACC didn't follow its own by-laws to amend the exit fee instead Maryland is making the argument the exit fee is punitive which I don't think a court will agree with because of the revenue Maryland is claiming they will receive from the B1G to justify their own decision to leave.
Expand...

Maryland's big problem is that the ACC membership contract says by signing it, the members agree that all disputes between them and the conference will be resolved in the Guilford County, NC, (the location of Greensboro) courts according to NC contract law. On a Ga Tech site one of the lawyers on it speculated that the ACC's strategy was to get the NC court to uphold that it had a valid contract with UMd and then go to the Prince Georges County, MD (the home of UMd) courts and say, "This is a valid contract under NC law according to the court in Guilford County, NC, and it needs to be enforced." The argument that the state of Md was making had bad implications for any commercial contract with a state entity from another state. What Md was arguing was that if they had bought a couple of pallets of copier paper from an out-of-state supplier and decided not to pay for it, the supplier was SOL in trying to sue to collect for the paper because of soverign immunity. One LOL argument that the Md state AG was also making (and, apparently, quickly dropped) was that UMd didn't have the authority to enter into a contract like this with the ACC in the first place.
 
Hoo's That said:
One LOL argument that the Md state AG was also making (and, apparently, quickly dropped) was that UMd didn't have the authority to enter into a contract like this with the ACC in the first place.
Expand...
but of course they can enter into a similar contract with the B10.
 
Alsacs said:
IMO, Maryland HAS TO MOVE THIS CASE to Federal Court in Greensboro now that it will be decided in NC. Maryland can let the case go thru in NC State Court and lose and then hope the MD State courts take the case and give them a better home venue, because then the ACC wouldn't need to honor the case if it is decided in a NC court first as the MD court honestly wouldn't have any legs to stand on. This decision means Maryland doesn't have an automatic appeal to the NC State Supreme Court which means it would take more time if they wanted to appeal this decision.

Maryland needs to either try to settle this number down if the ACC will listen which honestly I don't think they 1. want to settle or 2. have any reason to settle or move the case to Federal Court and try the case on the merits. The legal argument Maryland is using isn't going to work under the law IMO as I said the best legal argument would have been a due process argument that the ACC didn't follow its own by-laws to amend the exit fee instead Maryland is making the argument the exit fee is punitive which I don't think a court will agree with because of the revenue Maryland is claiming they will receive from the B1G to justify their own decision to leave.
Expand...

Not an attorney, but I read somewhere that there is a time limit to have a case moved to Federal Court using state law, and that time limit has long since passed. Is that not correct? Maryland would have to file another case in Federal Court using Federal Law?
 
I think you have seek removal within 30 days of filing.
 
It looks like the NC Court has ruled on the issue of proper procedure in increasing the exit fee and the issue of sovereign immunity - both against Maryland. I guess the issue of the exit fee as punitive is still undecided and that has always been the big one. That is a real dicey subject in NC. NC Courts do not like to enforce liquidated damages clauses if they consider them to be penalties. So I guess its stay tuned.
 
I say double it to $104 million for the aggravation.
 
Alsacs said:
IMO, Maryland HAS TO MOVE THIS CASE to Federal Court in Greensboro now that it will be decided in NC. Maryland can let the case go thru in NC State Court and lose and then hope the MD State courts take the case and give them a better home venue, because then the ACC wouldn't need to honor the case if it is decided in a NC court first as the MD court honestly wouldn't have any legs to stand on. This decision means Maryland doesn't have an automatic appeal to the NC State Supreme Court which means it would take more time if they wanted to appeal this decision.

Maryland needs to either try to settle this number down if the ACC will listen which honestly I don't think they 1. want to settle or 2. have any reason to settle or move the case to Federal Court and try the case on the merits. The legal argument Maryland is using isn't going to work under the law IMO as I said the best legal argument would have been a due process argument that the ACC didn't follow its own by-laws to amend the exit fee instead Maryland is making the argument the exit fee is punitive which I don't think a court will agree with because of the revenue Maryland is claiming they will receive from the B1G to justify their own decision to leave.
Expand...


The question is pretty simple as I understand the law - is the $52 million a fair assessment of the ACC's liquidated damages flowing from MD's exit.

And I frankly wonder about that.

And, as somebody else mentioned a few weeks ago, what if MD suddenly decides "heck, it's too costly to leave - we're staying!"??

Does anybody have any insight on that possibility?
 
OrangePA said:
The question is pretty simple as I understand the law - is the $52 million a fair assessment of the ACC's liquidated damages flowing from MD's exit.

And I frankly wonder about that.

And, as somebody else mentioned a few weeks ago, what if MD suddenly decides "heck, it's too costly to leave - we're staying!"??

Does anybody have any insight on that possibility?
Expand...

I think the first assessment is basically correct if I remember correctly.

I doubt they have the option to stay and I would assume that they would be in breach of whatever they signed with the B1G.
 
Crusty said:
I doubt they have the option to stay and I would assume that they would be in breach of whatever they signed with the B1G.
Expand...
What if they can't (or won't) reach an agreement on the exit fee? Would they even have an option to leave?

When are they scheduled to officially join the B1G - July? Wonder if the ACC is willing to let this drag out, seems like their drawback (having Louisville join before Maryland is out) is way less than Marylands (being contracted to two conferences at once).
 
Btstimpy said:
Not an attorney, but I read somewhere that there is a time limit to have a case moved to Federal Court using state law, and that time limit has long since passed. Is that not correct? Maryland would have to file another case in Federal Court using Federal Law?
Expand...
I am an attorney and the notice of removal must be filed within 30 days of the first removable document. However, because Maryland has claimed sovereign immunity in this case because they are claiming to be an agent of the State of Maryland and thus can't be sued in a NC State Court I believe their clock of 30 days starts now that the NC court rejected this argument of sovereign immunity and they will have 30 days from today to decide if they want to move this case to NC Federal Court.
 
I would think that once you give your notice to leave you can't just say "never mind." I don't think Maryland has an option.
 
Hoo's That said:
Maryland's big problem is that the ACC membership contract says by signing it, the members agree that all disputes between them and the conference will be resolved in the Guilford County, NC, (the location of Greensboro) courts according to NC contract law. On a Ga Tech site one of the lawyers on it speculated that the ACC's strategy was to get the NC court to uphold that it had a valid contract with UMd and then go to the Prince Georges County, MD (the home of UMd) courts and say, "This is a valid contract under NC law according to the court in Guilford County, NC, and it needs to be enforced." The argument that the state of Md was making had bad implications for any commercial contract with a state entity from another state. What Md was arguing was that if they had bought a couple of pallets of copier paper from an out-of-state supplier and decided not to pay for it, the supplier was SOL in trying to sue to collect for the paper because of soverign immunity. One LOL argument that the Md state AG was also making (and, apparently, quickly dropped) was that UMd didn't have the authority to enter into a contract like this with the ACC in the first place.
Expand...
I agree with this because the Court told Maryland that their claim of soverign immunity was invalid because of the reasons you have listened. If this case gets decided in NC first then the MD court honestly won't have any legs to stand on the case would be appealed by the MD attorneys to the Court of Appeals in 4th circuit in Richmond, VA and then the US Supreme Court if they wanted to take it.
 
Alsacs said:
I am an attorney and the notice of removal must be filed within 30 days of the first removable document. However, because Maryland has claimed sovereign immunity in this case because they are claiming to be an agent of the State of Maryland and thus can't be sued in a NC State Court I believe their clock of 30 days starts now that the NC court rejected this argument of sovereign immunity and they will have 30 days from today to decide if they want to move this case to NC Federal Court.
Expand...

Do you think there is any advantage to MD removing to US District Court? Do you practice in NC?
 
OrangePA said:
The question is pretty simple as I understand the law - is the $52 million a fair assessment of the ACC's liquidated damages flowing from MD's exit.

And I frankly wonder about that.

And, as somebody else mentioned a few weeks ago, what if MD suddenly decides "heck, it's too costly to leave - we're staying!"??

Does anybody have any insight on that possibility?
Expand...
I disagree with this because the 52 million dollar liquidated damages is what the 14 ACC schools agreed to and even if Maryland didn't like the exit fee increase the fact they claim its punitive is irrelevant IMO. The ACC By-laws require 75% for any change to get amended and 12 of 14 schools agreed to the increase. Somebody from FSU I was talking with told me that FSU voted no not because they disagreed with the increase, but because the ACC wasn't following the ACC bylaws and required a certain amount of days of notice before any vote to change the bylaws, and their reasoning made sense to me because if the ACC had to provide the schools 14 days notice of any votes to amend the bylaws and the ACC didn't follow that procedure and the vote occurred anyway then FSU was protecting themselves by voting no. My reading of the MD-ACC lawsuit MD hasn't made this very argument in their pleadings which if they did would clarify the matter and honestly is the only MD could win this lawsuit which would be on procedural grounds. The ACC could easily show the conference has lost 52 million dollars from MD leaving because they could cook the books by showing losses in sponsors from the MD area and TV markets for an ACC network.

MD can't stay they signed the B1G GOR and have B1G schedules released for 2014-2019 the ACC and B1G both know MD has announced where it plans to play in the future. MD can't stay because they would be worthless to ACC without GOR and the B1G would have a major headache.
 
By definition, every contract is agreed to by the parties. NC Courts routinely ignore liquidated damages clauses when they view them as penalties. At least they have routinely ignored mine!
 
Crusty said:
Do you think there is any advantage to MD removing to US District Court? Do you practice in NC?
Expand...
I am licensed in NC and yes I believe MD will absolutely want to move the case from NC Guilford County Superior Court to Middle District of North Carolina Superior Court. The reasons are because the Guilford County judges are elected and not appointed and will have to face the voters in the Fall and remember this case deals with Tarheels, Wolfpack, etc. and the pressure will be there. Second, all the judges from Guilford County are graduates of Duke, UNC, Wake Forest law schools that helps even though the judges will say that won't matter and even though many of the judges from the Federal Court are grads of those 3 schools they tend to be more conservative than the state judges and MD lawyers would want Federal Judges over State Judges or they are dumb.
 
Crusty said:
By definition, every contract is agreed to by the parties. NC Courts routinely ignore liquidated damages clauses when they view them as penalties. At least they have routinely ignored mine!
Expand...
Liquidated damage provisions in my study have rarely been ignored I am sure they get amended, but in the ACC cases they are following the bylaws of the conference which are agreed to by each partner in the conference. The Court would look at the fact MD is withdrawing from this partnership and is claiming the exit fee is excessive when it was agreed to by a 3/4 majority which is required by the bylaws. The FSU procedure violation argument is one that would have merits IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
170,399
Messages
4,889,628
Members
5,996
Latest member
meierscreek

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
191
Guests online
1,211
Total visitors
1,402
Totals may include hidden visitors.


...
Top Bottom