Latest ruling in Clemson’s legal battle vs. ACC favors the Tigers. Here’s how

A South Carolina judge on Friday granted Clemson a legal “win” in its ongoing court battle against the Atlantic Coast Conference over the conference’s grant of rights.

In a Pickens County courtroom, Judge Perry H. Gravely ruled after a three-hour hearing that Clemson’s lawsuit against the ACC will continue in the Tigers’ home county since the university has “established a case for specific jurisdiction.”

In other words, Gravely felt like there’s enough legal “contact” from the ACC in the state of South Carolina, through their work with Clemson in broadcasting games and so on, that the conference can indeed be sued in the Palmetto State.

The end result of Friday’s hearing: Clemson vs. ACC (filed March 19) will continue with regular litigation and will not be legally paused pending the outcome of ACC vs. Clemson in Charlotte, a separate case filed by the league March 20.

“I believe that Clemson has established a proper case for specific jurisdiction” under South Carolina law, Gravely said. “I think that the base, the crux of this case, is the grant of rights, the broadcasting (requirements).”

The ACC, in court Friday, had argued that Clemson’s lawsuit against it in South Carolina should be put to the side, or “stayed,” pending a resolution in North Carolina court in an effort to avoid “inconsistent judgments.”

An N.C. judge on Wednesday had denied Clemson’s motions to dismiss and stay the ACC’s countersuit, indicating in his ruling that he thought North Carolina was the correct venue for the Clemson-ACC dispute as well as the Florida State-ACC dispute. Both relate to the conference’s grant of rights.

As a refresher: The grant of rights is a documented signed by all ACC schools that was intended to provide stability amid conference realignment but has become a recent sticking point as revenue gaps between the ACC and other power conferences (specifically the SEC and Big Ten) grow and add new members.

To boost their potential realignment prospects, Clemson and FSU have both sued the conference and challenged the grant of rights, which, on a plain reading, says the ACC owns the media rights (and resulting revenue generated from them) of all of its member institutions through 2036, even if a school ceases to be a member of the ACC.

Clemson has already filed a notice to appeal Wednesday’s North Carolina ruling to the North Carolina Supreme Court, but one of the university’s lawyers, Rush Smith, said it could take another 12 to 18 months for a ruling from that court and described waiting for that process to play out as “delaying justice ... and denying justice.”

What does new ruling mean?

Friday’s decision by Gravely allows Clemson’s case in South Carolina to progress during that waiting period as the North Carolina Supreme Court considers a Clemson appeal (which hasn’t been formally filed but will be in the coming weeks) of Wednesday’s N.C. ruling.

Gravely, though, did dismiss a sovereign immunity-related claim that Clemson made in its lawsuit (building off the idea that a state or state “arm” can’t be sued outside of its own state) because he felt he could only issue an “advisory” opinion on that front and it would not be binding to other courts or other states, including North Carolina, where the league’s countersuit, ACC vs. Clemson, is going on in Mecklenburg County.

Gravely added that his opinion is subject to change pending a formal written ruling, but his message Friday was clear: The ACC has conducted enough business in South Carolina to qualify for a “minimal contact” standard, and because of that Clemson has established “specific jurisdiction.”

“Specific jurisdiction,” as opposed to “general jurisdiction,” means that the university indeed has standing to sue the conference under a state law that says a court may “exercise personal jurisdiction over a person” who acts directly or through an agent “as to a cause of action ... arising from the person’s transacting any business in this State.”

Most notably, Gravely’s ruling confirms the South Carolina case will go on rather than being paused. This puts the ACC-Clemson dispute on an identical track to the ACC-Florida State dispute, also regarding the grant of rights. In that case, a judges in North Carolina and Florida have both allowed the case to proceed in their state.

Gravely said a schedule for legal proceedings is forthcoming. Before Friday’s hearing, he also set aside a Clemson motion for summary judgment (a pre-case ruling that would have significantly sped up the process) until a later date. The ACC had previously contested that summary judgment claim.

David Dukes, another Clemson lawyer, and athletic director Graham Neff declined comment after the hearing. But based on courtroom observations from The State, the entire Tigers contingent appeared pleased as Gravely delivered a ruling “from the bench,” rather than via a written opinion at a later date.

The judge presiding over the ACC vs. Clemson case in North Carolina, Louis Bledsoe, took eight days to issue his written rulings, and lawyers indicated at last week’s hearing in Charlotte that Gravely would follow a similar schedule. But he surprised most in the courtroom Friday by more or less making his final ruling in real time after three hours of argument and a five-minute break.

The ACC issued the following statement after the hearing: “We are pleased with the dismissal of Clemson’s sovereign immunity claim and are disappointed with the other two rulings. The ACC will continue to focus on protecting the best interests of our membership.”

Why Clemson has jurisdiction

Even though Clemson is technically cooperating with ESPN, not the ACC, when it assists with producing broadcasts of home football games and other sporting events while providing things such as broadcasting studio space and personnel, “that’s still part of their agreement with the ACC,” Gravely said in his ruling.

The school detailed Friday how it helps produce 150 events a year under the grant of rights agreement it, along with all other ACC member schools, signed in 2013 and re-signed in 2016 (with president Jim Clements playing a key role in the extension as then-ACC Council of Presidents chair).

Smith, the Clemson lawyer, specifically cited an example of ESPN’s popular “College GameDay” visiting the school and broadcasting its famous Saturday pregame show.

“That was something Clemson was eager, happy, delighted to accommodate,” Smith said, “but for the purposes of this motion, (Clemson) was also contractually obligated to accommodate that.”

In arguing that the ACC is “deeply embedded” in sports business in South Carolina, Smith added that for such a “GameDay” visit, Clemson provides assets such as microphones, cameras, equipment, tents and catering to ESPN talent and staff. That, Smith said, is required of the school under the grant of rights.

An ACC attorney, Kevin Hall, later argued that Clemson’s business “contacts” on that front came through not the ACC but ESPN itself. He reminded Gravely that for ACC Network broadcasts (which are occasionally used for football, basketball and baseball games but mostly non-revenue sports), “the ACC doesn’t run or own the network. The ACC Network is an ESPN network.”

“When an ESPN truck comes to Clemson, that’s not an ACC contact,” Hall said. “That’s an ESPN contact. ... And ‘College GameDay’ is an ESPN production.”

Gravely sided with Clemson on the argument of business “contacts,” though, and cited previous precedent in South Carolina courts as well as the state’s aforementioned Long Arm Statute, in his ruling.

“Even though the agreement requires their cooperation with ESPN, that’s still part of their agreement with the ACC,” he said of Clemson, adding that previous court precedent in the state surrounding the Long Arm Statute established that a “single (business) transaction is sufficient to ensure jurisdiction.”