• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

NC Court will not dismiss Maryland's lawsuit against the ACC

Maryland officials were considering their options after Tuesday's ruling, said David Paulson, a spokesman for Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler. University representatives did not return messages seeking comment.
Click to expand...

What are there options? Will this thing get appealed into federal court?
 
I think you mean the NC appeals court refused to dismiss ACC's lawsuit against Maryland, in which the ACC seeks ~$52M.
 
I think it's just a question of state law right? It could definitely be in federal court at some point (diversity or amount both meet the requirement) but I don't know why it would really matter one way or the other since I imagine North Carolina contract law is the applicable law.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I think it's just a question of state law right? It could definitely be in federal court at some point (diversity or amount both meet the requirement) but I don't know why it would really matter one way or the other since I imagine North Carolina contract law is the applicable law.
Click to expand...

And most importantly, NC jurors
 
It shouldn't be removed to federal court, as my recollection is that there is a choice-of-venue clause that Maryland is a party to that says that disputes are to be resolved in the NC state courts. They would have waived their right to remove on diversity grounds. Even is there isn't, they would still have NC jurors in federal district court, so the jury pool wouldn't be much different either way.
 
DeacLaw05 said:
It shouldn't be removed to federal court, as my recollection is that there is a choice-of-venue clause that Maryland is a party to that says that disputes are to be resolved in the NC state courts. They would have waived their right to remove on diversity grounds. Even is there isn't, they would still have NC jurors in federal district court, so the jury pool wouldn't be much different either way.
Click to expand...

I didn't remember there being a choice of venue clause in the charter but there may have been one.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I think it's just a question of state law right? It could definitely be in federal court at some point (diversity or amount both meet the requirement) but I don't know why it would really matter one way or the other since I imagine North Carolina contract law is the applicable law.
Click to expand...

Don't think this (removal to Fed. Ct.) is accurate. First, removal must ordinarily be done within 30 days of service. Second, I am not sure there is diversity here. An unincorporated association is a citizen of the states of its members for diversity purposes. Who is still a member of the ACC? That's right, Maryland.

I think the only way this case ends up in Fed. Ct. is some type of appeal to SCOTUS.
 
KitchinDeac said:
Don't think this (removal to Fed. Ct.) is accurate. First, removal must ordinarily be done within 30 days of service. Second, I am not sure there is diversity here. An unincorporated association is a citizen of the states of its members for diversity purposes. Who is still a member of the ACC? That's right, Maryland.

I think the only way this case ends up in Fed. Ct. is some type of appeal to SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

As far as the damages go could it go to federal (notwithstanding the timing issue) or is it relevant that the lawsuit isn't asking for 52 million, it's just asking for a declaratory judgment that payment be made?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
As far as the damages go could it go to federal (notwithstanding the timing issue) or is it relevant that the lawsuit isn't asking for 52 million, it's just asking for a declaratory judgment that payment be made?
Click to expand...

Amount in controversy, standing alone, does not invoke federal jurisdiction. There has to be greater than $75k in dispute and complete diversity.
 
I haven't followed basically any of this. Law nerd question:

Any lawyer want to explain why this thing is in NC court? Simply because the ACC as a body is the place of incorporation (or some equivalent) for the various ACC athletic departments?
 
TexasDeac10 said:
I haven't followed basically any of this. Law nerd question:

Any lawyer want to explain why this thing is in NC court? Simply because the ACC as a body is the place of incorporation (or some equivalent) for the various ACC athletic departments?
Click to expand...

The simple answer is that the ACC beat Maryland to the punch and filed first and chose to file in Guilford County, NC (where the ACC headquarters is located). Maryland has tried, unsuccessfully, to convince the trial judge and appellate panel that they are not subject to jurisdiction in NC.
 
KitchinDeac said:
The simple answer is that the ACC beat Maryland to the punch and filed first and chose to file in Guilford County, NC (where the ACC headquarters is located). Maryland has tried, unsuccessfully, to convince the trial judge and appellate panel that they are not subject to jurisdiction in NC.
Click to expand...

Got it. And I assume all of the school athletic departments, as members of the ACC, are assumed to have sufficient contacts with the ACC headquarters? I was kind of wondering if the athletic departments, separate from their respective universities, actually had to file their place of business as part of the ACC (and therefore in NC).
 
TexasDeac10 said:
Got it. And I assume all of the school athletic departments, as members of the ACC, are assumed to have sufficient contacts with the ACC headquarters? I was kind of wondering if the athletic departments, separate from their respective universities, actually had to file their place of business as part of the ACC (and therefore in NC).
Click to expand...

That is correct, and Maryland did not even try to make the personal jurisdiction argument that your question presumes: that the University of Maryland does not have sufficient contacts with the state of North Carolina to satisfy due process. Maryland's personal jurisdiction argument is that the North Carolina courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over Maryland because Maryland has sovereign immunity under Maryland law, and the North Carolina courts ought to recognize that immunity under the principles of comity. Both the trial court, and the appellate court, rejected that argument because North Carolina public policy provides that sovereign immunity does not apply to contract claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top