Maryland loses effort to dismiss ACC suit

[BlueDevilBrowns]

http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/11/19/court-rejects-marylands-attempts-to-dismiss-lawsuit-over-acc-exit-fee/



Maryland's lawsuit to dismiss the ACC's $52 million exit fee has been unanimously rejected by the NC Court of Appeals.

[Dev11]

http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/11/19/court-rejects-marylands-attempts-to-dismiss-lawsuit-over-acc-exit-fee/



Maryland's lawsuit to dismiss the ACC's $52 million exit fee has been unanimously rejected by the NC Court of Appeals.

I hope we use a small portion of our ~$3M cut of that fee to put up a nice plaque thanking Maryland for their contribution to our new track facility or Wallace Wade Stadium luxury boxes. It's the least we could do.

[brevity]

Maryland's lawsuit to dismiss the ACC's $52 million exit fee has been unanimously rejected by the NC Court of Appeals.

For once the Tar Heel alumni infiltrating all levels of state government have worked to Duke's advantage.

[Indoor66]

For once the Tar Heel alumni infiltrating all levels of state government have worked to Duke's advantage.

The decision probably had a lot more to do with application of appropriate law and precedent than to school affiliations.

[Atlanta Duke]

The decision probably had a lot more to do with application of appropriate law and precedent than to school affiliations.

Yep - the ACC hired a Davidson grad to argue the appeal - conference loyalty only goes so far;)

[Henderson]

Yep - the ACC hired a Davidson grad to argue the appeal - conference loyalty only goes so far;)

Well, if a person wanted to go all tinfoil hatted to this party, he might point out that this three-judge panel deciding the case was made up of two UNC grads and a Davidson grad.

But in fairness, Maryland's argument is weak. It wasn't they who sued the ACC. It was the ACC who sued UM for refusing to pay the exit fee. Maryland moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that, as a state institution, it's immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. So far, UM hasn't found any judge to buy the argument. Why? Because it's an argument unsupported by the law in this case.

[Orange&BlackSheep]

Why? Because it's an argument unsupported by the law in this case.

Shocking that Maryland of all places would use such an argument. Next you will tell me that their argument in favor of throwing bottles at Duke family members is unsupported by the law.

[OldPhiKap]

Well, if a person wanted to go all tinfoil hatted to this party, he might point out that this three-judge panel deciding the case was made up of two UNC grads and a Davidson grad.

But in fairness, Maryland's argument is weak. It wasn't they who sued the ACC. It was the ACC who sued UM for refusing to pay the exit fee. Maryland moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that, as a state institution, it's immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. So far, UM hasn't found any judge to buy the argument. Why? Because it's an argument unsupported by the law in this case.

Puuting aside the interesting question of what State's law applies, sovereign immunity generally applies to torts and not contracts. One could presumably argue that a contract was ultra vires (Beyoncé authorized powers) and thus unenforceable, but given the legal review I assume the contract had at the time of execution I would think this is weak.

The best argument would be that the fee is a penalty as opposed to a reasonable pre-estimate of damages, which could make the contract payment unenforceable. Not sure of the law that applies -- does the Charter have a selection of law provision?

[Reilly]

... One could presumably argue that a contract was ultra vires (Beyoncé authorized powers) and thus unenforceable...

If Jay-Z authorized it, would it be enforceable?

[OldPhiKap]

If Jay-Z authorized it, would it be enforceable?

Wow, autocorrect has adopted my daughter's itunes library. Should state "beyond authorized powers."

I suspect that, between Jay-Z and Beyoncé, all things being equal, Beyoncé wins. Per Coach K, at least.

[sagegrouse]

Well, if a person wanted to go all tinfoil hatted to this party, he might point out that this three-judge panel deciding the case was made up of two UNC grads and a Davidson grad.

But in fairness, Maryland's argument is weak. It wasn't they who sued the ACC. It was the ACC who sued UM for refusing to pay the exit fee. Maryland moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that, as a state institution, it's immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. So far, UM hasn't found any judge to buy the argument. Why? Because it's an argument unsupported by the law in this case.


Shocking that Maryland of all places would use such an argument. Next you will tell me that their argument in favor of throwing bottles at Duke family members is unsupported by the law.

I can't tell if this is a case where Maryland expects to win or where it is looking to make a settlement en route that saves a few million bucks.

sagegrouse

[Henderson]

I can't tell if this is a case where Maryland expects to win or where it is looking to make a settlement en route that saves a few million bucks.

sagegrouse

I think the sovereign immunity argument was their hoped-for "magic bullet" that would get them out of the case entirely. It didn't work. That leaves them with no real defense going forward. If the ACC is blessed with any cajones at all, it will absorb the ongoing legal fees (MD incurs them too if they prolong this) to make a statement both within the conference and nationally: These exit fees are mandatory.

If you think about it, this idea that a state university can't be forced to pay an exit fee based on sovereign immunity would have huge implications. Private schools couldn't take advantage of that argument and would have to pay the fee, so only private institutions would be subject to the fee. And conferences with just state institutions as members would have to just ignore the exit fee requirement entirely. The whole system of locking schools into conference commitments would break down.

[Indoor66]

I think the sovereign immunity argument was their hoped-for "magic bullet" that would get them out of the case entirely. It didn't work. That leaves them with no real defense going forward. If the ACC is blessed with any cajones at all, it will absorb the ongoing legal fees (MD incurs them too if they prolong this) to make a statement both within the conference and nationally: These exit fees are mandatory.

If you think about it, this idea that a state university can't be forced to pay an exit fee based on sovereign immunity would have huge implications. Private schools couldn't take advantage of that argument and would have to pay the fee, so only private institutions would be subject to the fee. And conferences with just state institutions as members would have to just ignore the exit fee requirement entirely. The whole system of locking schools into conference commitments would break down.

If the sovereign immunity defense would be allowed it would effectively negate the agreement and would, most likely, be unenforceable against any of the parties, public or private. I know I could construct one heck of an argument for that outcome - and I think a winning argument. You know, the old sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander argument.