The State of Florida First District Court of Appeal unanimously ruled in favor of Florida State University to proceed with a lawsuit against the Atlantic Coast Conference in Leon County on Monday, setting up what will be separate, dueling lawsuits in Florida and in North Carolina.

In June, Leon County Circuit Court Judge John Cooper rejected the ACC's request for a stay of the BOT v ACC case in Florida, prompting the ACC to file a petition for a “writ of certiorari” at the First District Court of Appeal.

The three-judge panel held arguments in September 2024 on the merits of the appeal.

In rejection of that appeal Judge John Lewis wrote: “Petitioner, the Atlantic Coast Conference (“ACC”), petitions for a writ of certiorari and asks this court to quash the trial court’s denial of its motion to stay the case filed in Leon County by Respondent, the Florida State University Board of Trustees (“FSU Board”). The ACC argues that under the principle of priority, the trial court should have stayed the FSU Board’s action pending the disposition of the ACC’s suit filed in North Carolina, which involves the same parties and the same issues. Because the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of the law in denying the ACC’s motion to stay, we deny its certiorari petition on the merits.”

The ACC claimed because its lawsuit was filed first, the Florida challenge should be put on hold until the North Carolina case is resolved.

Florida State contended the conference raced to the courthouse one day before Florida State filed its lawsuit in December in Leon County without obtaining the required vote from member schools. FSU alleges this “rush to the courthouse” was to gain an advantage when deciding appropriate venue (where the case will be heard).

Cooper disagreed in September, prompting the ACC to file a writ of certiorari – a remedy that gives a higher court the prerogative to reach down and halt a miscarriage of justice -- but the three-judge panel that included Judges Lewis, Ross Bilbrey and M. Kemmerly Thomas rejected the ACC’s request in a unanimous 13-page ruling.

The ACC failed to show "there was a departure from the essential requirements of the law" in Cooper's ruling that "cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal," the panel found.

The ACC's first-filing argument, the "principle of priority," also failed with the panel. The ACC filed its lawsuit on Dec. 21, the same day the FSU board of Trustees posted notice of an emergency BOT meeting on Dec. 22 to discuss legal matters related to intercollegiate athletics.”

In his opinion, Lewis wrote: “Typically, the issue in “anticipatory suit” cases is whether the competing case was in fact filed in anticipation of the challenged case. . . . In the instant case, the evidence shows that the ACC filed its declaratory judgment suit in North Carolina in anticipation of a next-morning filing in Florida by the FSU Board. . . . President Ryan’s Declaration describes the ACC learning on December 21, 2023 of the FSU Board’s public notice of a meeting for the next day, and the ACC’s becoming aware that the meeting was likely for purpose of initiating litigation against the ACC. President Ryan describes that the ACC filed its own lawsuit in North Carolina on December 21, 2023 expressly in anticipation of the FSU Board’s to-be-filed Florida lawsuit – the instant suit, which the ACC seeks to stay upon the principle of priority. Although the ACC argued they had an obligation to file their suit, they could have done so long before learning of the to-be-filed action and only did so after learning of the impending action in Florida.”

Cooper has re-scheduled a hearing for Friday to resume the FSU Board of Trustees vs. Atlantic Coast Conference lawsuit in which FSU has been asking for a declaratory judgment to obtain a “definitive understanding of the financial consequences” should it withdraw from the ACC.

The lawsuits, filed between the Florida State Board of Trustees and the Atlantic Coast Conference are based on Florida State’s desire to leave the ACC for a more-lucrative conference media rights agreement and to avoid what the university termed “unconscionable penalties” for making such a move.

The FSU Board wants to know “whether the ACC’s withdrawal penalty is legally enforceable against it, whether the ACC materially breached its contractual obligations, whether the ACC breached its fiduciary relationship, whether the Grant of Rights agreements were unenforceable due to frustration of purpose, and whether the ACC’s punishments violated Florida public policy and were unconscionable.”

Follow The Osceola on Facebook

Follow The Osceola on Twitter

Subscribe to the Osceola's YouTube channel

Subscribe to the Osceola's podcasts on Apple