The battle for venue has begun in the Florida State Board of Trustee’s lawsuit against the Atlantic Coast Conference. The FSU BOT’s North Carolina-based legal team of Bradley, Arant, Boult, Cummings LLP filed a motion to dismiss in Mecklenburg County Superior Court on Wednesday, the latest step in a contentious legal journey by the Seminoles, who seek to leave the conference.
The legal arguments FSU made included the following:
“1. The ACC filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgement against the FSU Board after hours on December 21, 2023, in an admitted ‘race to the courthouse’ to secure what it hoped would prove to be a more favorable forum because it speculated that the FSU Board might vote to authorize the filing of a lawsuit in Florida the very next day.
“2. Notwithstanding the ACC’s improper attempt at ‘procedural fencing,’ the ACC’s lawsuit against the FSU Board is fundamentally flawed and subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b) for a host of reasons:
“a. First, the ACC prematurely filed suit before an actual or justiciable controversy arose, warranting dismissal.”
In other words, the ACC filed its suit before the FSU BOT even voted to sue the ACC, let alone filed the suit.
“b. Second, in its race to the courthouse, the ACC made no attempt to provide member notice or to obtain the two-thirds member vote required by its Constitution to initiate this lawsuit, warranting dismissal.
“c. Third, the ACC is not permitted to sue the FSU Board in North Carolina, as the FSU Board has not waived its sovereign immunity anywhere except within the boundaries of the State of Florida.
“d. Fourth, the Amended Complaint fails to plead that the FSU Board approved the Grants of Rights as required by Florida law.”
This is an interesting claim, and the first time FSU has put it forth, as it claims the Grant of Rights was signed only by the president and not by the FSU Board of Trustees, who are the only legal entity who can “contract or be contracted with.”
“e. Fifth, North Carolina law for unincorporated nonprofit associations does not support the ACC’s attempt to impose broad, extra-contractual fiduciary duties on each of its members to act in the best interest of the ACC, warranting dismissal.
“3. In the alternative, if the Court does not dismiss this action, the Court should stay it in favor of the Florida action… The Florida Action is the broader and more comprehensive action, and the ACC should not be entitled to any first-filing deference as a result of its improper venue-shopping.”
The Osceola’s legal advisors accurately predicted venue would be the first battle front — whether the case is heard in North Carolina or Florida — an argument that could take months to decide and potentially appeal.
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
