South Carolina judge affirms July ruling, allows Clemson's case vs. the ACC to proceed
CLEMSON — South Carolina judge Perry H. Gravely upheld his July 12 verbal bench ruling in a written order filed Tuesday in Pickens County.
The order allows Clemson University's case against the Atlantic Coast Conference to proceed. Gravely denied the conference's motion to dismiss the school's claim for lack of personal jurisdiction vs. the ACC and for abatement, when a legal proceeding is delayed, interrupted or closed.
"South Carolina has a strong interest in adjudicating this dispute — a dispute over alleged damages to the property rights of a public body of the State of South Carolina serving thousands of South Carolina residents each year," Gravely wrote.
Clemson lawyers argued last month the ACC does commercial business in South Carolina, voicing the conference doesn't own property in the state but uses the university's resources to operate in the state.
Gravely agreed, referencing the ACC's grant-of-rights agreement with ESPN on Tuesday that "obligates Clemson 'to satisfy and perform all contractual obligations of a Member Institution' and 'to provide ESPN and its sublicensees with reasonable access to its property and facilities.'"
The judge referenced "Clemson's investment of $7 million into production facilities constructed to generate media content for bundling by the ACC for sale to ESPN, the school's accommodation of and cooperation with ESPN in granting ESPN access to Clemson's facilities to generate media content for distribution on its networks and through syndication and the university's production and delivery of media content generated on Clemson's athletic courts and fields in South Carolina for bundling by the ACC for sale to ESPN."
Gravely dismissed the ACC's claim for abatement because he believes the ongoing cases occurring in South Carolina and North Carolina are not the same.
"Moreover, though the claims involved in the separate actions (pending in separate states) may have some overlap, they differ in significant respects and are not substantially identical," Gravely wrote.
MORE: What Clemson football's Phil Mafah said about preseason backup running back battle
Gravely added the conference did not add a forum selection clause — a contractual agreement that designates the court and location where the parties would like to have their legal dispute decided — into its contracts with Clemson and other ACC schools and won't include one after the fact. As a result, the ACC's motion for abatement was rejected.
This gives a perceived home-court advantage to Clemson, but it doesn't mean a South Carolina court's ruling will overrule a North Carolina ruling, if one occurs. This is reinforced with Gravely granting the league's motion to dismiss the university's request for declaratory judgment for sovereign immunity, citing that a ruling in one state isn't binding to another state's court.
A North Carolina judge ruled on the ACC's countersuit against Clemson in Mecklenburg County on July 10 when Louis A. Bledsoe III denied Clemson's motion to stay and rejected, in part, its motion to dismiss the league's countersuit.
Clemson filed a notice of appeal to the North Carolina supreme court, triggering an "automatic stay," until the appeal has been resolved. A stay is a ruling by a court to stop or suspend a proceeding or trial temporarily or indefinitely.
The legal battle started March 19 after the university filed its initial complaint against the conference in Pickens County over the conference's grant of rights deal and withdrawal penalty. The decision was seen as an initial legal step to potentially depart the conference to join the SEC or Big Ten. The ACC responded a day later with its countersuit in Mecklenburg County.
Derrian Carter covers Clemson athletics for The Greenville News and the USA TODAY Network. Email him at dcarter@gannett.com and follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter, @DerrianCarter00
This article originally appeared on Greenville News: Clemson-ACC lawsuit: South Carolina judge allows case to proceed
