Victory for Clemson vs. ACC - Clemson wins the second battle in its lawsuits against the conference

PICKENS, S.C. — A South Carolina judge ruled in Clemson’s favor on Friday in a jurisdiction hearing in the Clemson vs. the Atlantic Coast Conference lawsuit in Pickens, S.C.

Judge Perry H. Gravely denied the ACC’s motion to dismiss the case in South Carolina. The judge said Clemson has proven jurisdiction and ruled in the university’s favor on abatement, as the case is going to move forward in the state of South Carolina. He also ruled sovereign immunity in favor of the ACC.

Clemson and the ACC met in a courtroom for the second time in the last 10 days on Friday. On Wednesday, the North Carolina courts denied Clemson’s motion to dismiss the case in North Carolina, as part of the ACC’s countersuit against the university. That hearing took place on July 2 in Charlotte, N.C.

Clemson filed an appeal on that ruling Thursday to the North Carolina Supreme Court.

Clemson, of course, is suing the ACC over its Grant of Rights Agreement.

ACC attorney James Cooney argued that South Carolina courts do not have jurisdiction on a Clemson-ACC contract dispute. His claim is not about Clemson playing games in the state of South Carolina, but more so about the words in the contract and the conference gets “no substitutional revenue” from doing business in South Carolina.

He points out there have been no ACC Championship events held in South Carolina since 2021and the only advertising the leagues does during games are promo messages.

In his arguments, Cooney also addressed Clemson’s slander claims in the lawsuit. In its filings, Clemson used some of the statement from Commissioner Jim Phillips to support its claims.

Cooney said Phillips can say what he wants to in this matter.

“For him to slander anybody or anything in South Carolina, he has to direct that at Clemson,” he said.

The big point of his argument was a quote from Clemson President Jim Clements after the ACC signed its deal with ESPN. Quoting Clements, Cooney said, “It stabilizes the conference long term.”

He even repeated the quote and said, “that is critical.”

Cooney also brought up the the email exchange between Clemson and the ACC moving this year’s Clemson-South Carolina Game to Black Friday.

“Clemson said no, we are not going to do that. They had a right to do that,” the league’s attorney said. “The ACC did not have the right to direct them to move it. They asked them to do it and they chose not to.”

Clemson was represented by Rush Smith, who said the ACC’s logos on the field are visible signs of how broadly they have availed themselves of the privilege of doing business in South Carolina.

As for the GOR, he said each time Clemson was presented with them, they were told they had to sign it.

“They said, ‘We need you to sign this, or (ESPN) won’t enter into the contract with us.’ That is a very intentional act,” Smith said.

The GOR is one example of how Clemson claims the ACC is doing business in South Carolina, and thus jurisdiction for the case can be heard in South Carolina.

“This is a no-choice-of-law clause in the grant of rights. The ACC could have easily placed one there,” Smith said.

Smith went on to explain there is a little bit of difference between South Carolina law and North Carolina law, but despite the contract being written in North Carolina, a court in South Carolina can rule on it.

In the end, the ACC asked the judge not to miss Friday’s motion but to instead “park it to one side” until Clemson’s appeal is heard and decided on in North Carolina.

The ACC’s attorney even said that having the case in North Carolina might be to Clemson’s advantage if a ruling was in its favor.

Clemson’s attorney’s pushed back, saying the case might be processed slower in the North Carolina courts, and how it could go all the way to U.S. Supreme Court.

When Cooney pushed back saying Clemson wants a conflicting decision from the South Carolina court so it can go back to North Carolina and say they were wrong.

Smith countered by saying, “We filed first. If there is a conflict, it is not because we filed our lawsuit.”

— photo by Ken Ruinard / USA TODAY NETWORK